just to be clear trump administration is not using Patriot Act era standards. They're going far beyond what any previous administration has done and openly breaking the law.
I have a feeling they would have gotten here even if Obama didn't expand the surveillance state.
Because for all of the issues I take with Obama over Snowden, there were also attempts to keep promises and maintain stability and order within the country. Say what you will but there were no literal masked thugs kidnapping people at gunpoint under Obama. With many things you have to weigh a person’s actions in balance, and in balance Trump is way way way way way way worse than Obama.
I lost faith that the government would respect my right to privacy with Binney, Klein, and Snowden. I then lost faith that the government wouldn't go out of its way to openly attack and subjugate me with Turmp. A pattern of escalation is still escalation.
But to anybody only just waking up to this unaccountable surveillance-industrial complex now: Welcome! While I wish you had been with us after Snowden, I am glad you are here now.
Wrong. Stop both sides-ing this. What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans: Nixon, Regan, Bush, and now Trump.
Wrong. Stop being so brainwashed by party politics.
Corporate dems - which are all of them in the last two decades - doing little for the average citizen, protecting megacorps, accelerating wealth concentration, protecting the billionaires, have also played a big role in maling the average citizen distrust their government.
Do you really think not a single one of them knew about the Epstein files? You can't be taken seriously if you do. And if you don't, their participation in keeping it hidden too builds distrust, even if 20 times more reps were involved. The dem candidate of only 10 years ago must have known. The chance she didn't is so small.
Snowden's revelations built distrust. Everything he revealed was absolutely "both sides". You can say "one side has been much worse", and sure, that's fair. But pretending that the other has been squeaky clean and that their own actions haven't played a huge role in the current situation is just sticking your hand in the sand.
People are tired of having to choose between "awful A" and "even worse B". If the dems stopped nominating "awful A" and replaced then with "decent A" then it'd be a landslide. But they won't. They haven't changed one bit. Mamdani, finally an example of "decent A", was hindered. They didn't want to see him win at all, and only started cheering for him when he finally did. By a huge margin, because he's a "decent A".
Until this changes, until the day that decent candidates of Mamdani are universally cheered on and given the full first choice backing by that party, not a single thing will get better, and it will only get worse, because it means the inevitable next rep winner will be even worse.
I'm not sure how you got this mindset, but it's not great, and I'm sure deep down you're smarter than this. These aren't football teams to cheer for.
Corporate dems has suck. They are slightly better than the corporate republicans of the 90s and early 2000s.
Why? Because they knew that stability and economic prosperity were things people wanted. They of course never went far enough and didn’t ever want to rock the boat.
But, importantly, what you’re trying to do is wrong. Trump is not like corporate dems. It’s significantly worse. There’s not a single redeeming thing about this regime.
And all republicans are 100% behind trump. That means the entire Republican Party is guilty and responsible for what trump does.
So yes, it is appropriate to paint the entire group with one broad stroke. They’re all guilty of enabling a criminal to shred the constitution and destroy the entire fabric of US society for the next few generations. (The US has backslid to the late 1800s - blatant corruption everywhere).
The concept of "both-sidesism" is a thought-terminating cliché that attempts to be a more reasonable sounding way of saying that one side is holy and the other is sinful that was invented on social media platforms for propaganda purposes.
> What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans
Many examples have been given in this post's comments alone and are already well-known by the average HN user, such as:
1. The Snowden Leaks (Obama)
2. The Pentagon Papers (exposed under Nixon, describes actions under Kennedy and Johnson administration)
No, it’s an attempt to weigh the actions of either side in aggregate. What you’re doing is trying to argue that everything is awful and so why bother. I’ve seen numerous examples of one group acting well-meaning and sincere, and numerous examples of the other group taking advantage and sewing chaos. If you think they’re both the same you’re either not paying attention to everything or you only care about a very few things. Either way it’s going to be impossible for me to find common ground with you as long as you refuse to try to work with what you’ve got.
Number 1 was Bush. The republicans crated the NSA surveillance machine.
Number 2 — know your US history. The democratic and republican parties flipped philosophies in 68. Their dems went pro integration and the southern dems went to the Republican Party, which remained segregationist. Nixon was closer to Kennedy and LBJ than Humphrey.
Number 3 is nothing - it wasn’t active targeting. They implemented rules to check all organizations. The republican affiliates ones were skirting the rules. They looked at orgs with certain things in their name, but it was an investigation. No government action came of it. It was not abuse. This is another lie by the republicans.
1. If I give you a loaded gun you're still responsible for shooting somebody.
2. It is an oversimplified view to suggest that Democratic and Republican parties completely flipped during the late 60s but they certainly did reverse views on race.
3. They put extra scrutiny organizations with "Tea Party" or "patriots" in their names and admitted as much. Unless the Obama administration was secretly Republican and put out this "lie" to negatively impact themselves as part of some grand reptilian conspiracy.
> On Friday, May 10, a top official with the Internal Revenue Service dropped a bombshell. IRS staffers had singled out conservative organizations with “tea party” or “patriots” in their name that were seeking tax-exempt nonprofit status, subjecting them to extra scrutiny to see if they were abusing the tax law as it relates to political activity.
You're not allowed to seek tax exempt status if you are a partisan organization. Searching for political terminology to determine that is perfectly logical.
When Europeans wonder why the U.S. is so backwards and barbaric about not implementing a National ID scheme. Look no further, ladies and gents, because at least once every 200 years, the population has a day of supreme brain off and puts someone like Trump in office. Once that happens, you too will appreciate why it should be hard for the government to do things.
The issue is with the US is that ID is not free. I just had to pay 50 bucks to renew my driver's license. renewing a passport was 150 dollars the last time I checked (which was 2021). So any more costs just to function in society is a major impact to quite a few rights. The most hot topic being voter eligibility.
this is foreign to EU because, to my knowledge, getting an ID is free.
europeans are well versed in the consequences of autocratic takeover of their governments, why they pretend to not know even recent history of the 20th century, I'll never understand.
Edward Snowden had stolen the most sensitive classified secrets from The United States Intelligence Community and Donald Trump is looking to squash dissent of his attempts to nullify the Constitution and establish a dictatorship.
I get what you're saying, but please have some perspective. the two things are not even remotely similar.
To be fair, those sensitive secrets included secret, unconstitutional, dragnet surveillance programs targeting american citizens, and the fact that the director of national intelligence had perjured himself during congressional hearings on those programs.
Less than 1% of what Snowden took and leaked pertained to domestic surveillance programs, The rest was intelligence capabilities and sources and methods.
But that's besides the point. There is a real argument that the U.S. government, in trying to catch Snowden, was protecting national security. There is no such argument with Trump.
No, it was retribution. The info was already out there when they were going after him. Even if he stayed in the US and was captured, it still wouldn't have "stopped" anything.
> The info was already out there when they were going after him.
This was of course not known at the time. The only thing that was known is that a single individual was responsible for the greatest breach of classified secrets in the nation's history, and that individual was still at large.
How does that change or affect the point I'm making?
> This was of course not known at the time. The only thing that was known is that a single individual was responsible for the greatest breach of classified secrets in the nation's history, and that individual was still at large.
If Snowden hasn't moved quickly, he wouldn't have been able to leak any of it.
What he did, grab it all, then give it to reputable journalists, was the correct option to be able to inform the public of massive intelligence dragnets targeting civilians that the government was lying about.
> If Snowden hasn't moved quickly, he wouldn't have been able to leak any of it.
How does stealings sensitive materials not related to domestic surveillance improve his odds of successfully leaking information and fleeing the country?
What they did to snowden was illegitimate but at least they had the cover that he was an insider that had signed a contract with the government. They are going after random ass people expressing a 1A opinion now. Legally very different ballgames even though both dissenters are correct to voice their opinions and knowledge and should not have been pursued for objecting to extravagant government wrongdoing.
> I get what you're saying, but please have some perspective. the two things are not even remotely similar.
Snowden sacrificed a comfortable life, his friends, and family to tell the American people they were being lied to. He exposed things that people SHOULD HAVE gone to prison for. Snowden is a hero, period.
Friend, if you followed Snowden's saga at all, you would know that those events don't need to be similar to be relevant to the discussion at hand. In other words, just because you have a problem with Trump, does not mean the two issues are not connected.
It's the standard we're discussing. It's what Donald Trump's DHS is doing right now and the Snowden comparisons are irrelevant and imo a bad faith attempt at trying to muddy the waters.
Stop both sides-ing everything the Trump administration does to give them more oxygen to operate.
One more try, what did Obama in terms of abusing his police state targeting American citizens that even approached what we are seeing with ICE, the FBI, etc. right now.
Hmm. You are putting me in quite a pickle, but I can't tell if you are being serious or not. Obama was almost literally Bush 2.0, but with better PR and media coverage.
Fuck man. Here is a short list of how he explictly expanded police state that impacted actual American citizens ( and not random criminal aliens ICE picks up ):
- Targetted killing of US citizen without a trial via drone strike ( Anwar al-Awlaki )
- Signed 2012 NDAA with 'indefinite detention' provisions
- Extended Patriot ACT in 2011
- Re-authorized FISA in 2012
- Defended post-Snowden NSA metadata collection
- Seized reporter's property in leak investigation
edit: - 'fast and furious' which effectively created a problem, which at best can be considered reckless if not planned and pretty evil if actually intended to work the way it did
Seriously man, unless you literally just started observing politics, you may want to reconsider your high horse stance.
> Targetted killing of US citizen without a trial via drone strike ( Anwar al-Awlaki )
This was in a literal war zone against a man who literally declared war on the United States.
> Signed 2012 NDAA with 'indefinite detention' provisions
Didn't answer my question. This law targeted terrorists, not mothers of two, driving home from dropping their kids off at school.
> Extended Patriot ACT in 2011 - Re-authorized FISA in 2012
Didn't answer my question.
> Defended post-Snowden NSA metadata collection
Didn't answer my question.
> Seized reporter's property in leak investigation
This appears to be an actual leak investigation done by the DOJ. I don't recall these journalists being arrested, denied a lawyer, etc. I can't find any evidence that this was a legitimate leak investigation done in accordance with the law.
> 'fast and furious'
Reminder, we are talking about domestic surveillance and illegal detainment for political purposes.
Donald Trump has over 6,000 habeas corpus violations working their way through the court system in America right now. Obama had < 10 in 8 years. He is detaining U.S. citizens without cause, without explanation, and subjecting them to torturous conditions.
Your attempt to say both sides are the same is clearly an attempt to sound intelligent like you're above the discourse. You're not.
See... this is kinda how I know you have a political axe to grind. You are not arguing principles, which makes your outrage.. shall we say less potent. You are arguing your favorite outcome.
Allow me a quick rewrite of your breathless response in a more reasonable language.
<< This was in a literal war zone against a man who literally declared war on the United States.
Was he targeted? Was he targeted willfully? Was he target ted willfully, while administration knew he was an American citizen? When did they know it? Did they stop their plans once they did?
And that is before we get into: do you stop being a citizen when president says so? Seems pretty apt given how we are about to cover Good.
<< Didn't answer my question. This law targeted terrorists, not mothers of two, driving home from dropping their kids off at school.
You are apparently cool with president determining, who the terrorists are. If so, ICE shooting a mother of two ( who was clearly not watching those two kids m ind you ) is just an expansion of powers Obama gave himself. Thanks Obama!
<< Didn't answer my question (x2).
You can barely answer yours. (x2)
<< I can't find any evidence that this was a legitimate leak investigation done in accordance with the law.
I literally laughed. Try harder. Maybe consult an llm? Maybe all those arguments about AI effectively being here already because the floor is so low are not that far fetched.
<< Reminder, we are talking about domestic surveillance and illegal detainment for political purposes.
Sigh, we are talking about what we are talking about. It is cute that you think you can control this conversation though. In a way, it is almost like watching a toddler walking for the first time. Don't get me wrong, it is adorable, but it doesn't change much.
> See... this is kinda how I know you have a political axe to grind.
> Allow me a quick rewrite of your breathless response in a more reasonable language.
The fact that you won't just reply point by point and want to spin up a self-important narrative tells me everything I need to know about this interaction.
> Was he targeted? Was he targeted willfully? Was he target ted willfully, while administration knew he was an American citizen? When did they know it? Did they stop their plans once they did?
I was pointing out how Trump is targeting and killing US citizens in America for peacefully protesting and your "both both sides do it!" attempt was a U.S. citizen literally fighting against the U.S. in a warzone.
>If so, ICE shooting a mother of two ( who was clearly not watching those two kids m ind you ) is just an expansion of powers Obama gave himself. Thanks Obama!
ICE had a specific mandate under Obama (and every other President) to go after only criminals. Trump perverted this mandate to form a militarized police force to attack democratic cities, killing protesters with no accountability.
We get it. You are above all this. You are too smart to think that either party is better than the other.
<< I was pointing out how Trump is targeting and killing US citizens in America for peacefully protesting and your "both both sides do it!" attempt was a U.S. citizen literally fighting against the U.S. in a warzone.
Huh? ICE is targeting illegal aliens. Protesters try to interfere ICE targeting illegal aliens.. you know their mandated duties and you are surprised at the results? For comparison, if I were to block FBI/DEA from conducting their operations by using a car, would that be acceptable from your perspective?
Naturally, the whole conversation is kinda silly, because if you know anything about this issue, then you know part of the reason 'sanctuary cities' are called that way is because local police is expected not to coordinate with ICE, which is kinda how the shitshow that you saw in twin cities is not a real issue in jurisdictions that follow federal law..
<< ICE had a specific mandate under Obama (and every other President) to go after only criminals.
And they did. Now, it certainly was something of a surprise how many are willing to protect criminals ( I am sorry, 'protect the community'. If Good actually stayed home and tended to her kids maybe she would have been alive today. But she chose badly. She should have chosen taking care of HER kids. ICE didn't do great, but I can't really fault them here.
<< You are too smart to think that either party is better than the other.
I am smart enough to distance myself. If you have any survival skills left in you, you should consider doing the same. I can't tell if you really believe the tripe you wrote, but it does not really matter. I said it before. The mood has shifted in ways you may have not noticed.
Overstaying your visa is a civil offense. Kidnapping and assaulting people who haven't even committed a misdemeanor is illegal and unconstitutional.
> Protesters try to interfere ICE targeting illegal aliens
Well in that case you could declare all protests as "interfering with police operations" thereby making illegal all protests and ohhhhh ok I get it.
You're not a "both sides" guy. You actively support this admin attacking the constitution and you're trying to make it look better by creating false equivalences instead of just owning what you support.
I'd have at least a little respect for you if you just owned it.
Whether you realize it or not, we have barely even started. Honestly, I will be amused if you can resist the temptation.
<< I'd have at least a little respect for you if you just owned it.
Pass, I have seen what your respect is worth.
<< You're not a "both sides" guy.
In a sense, I am worse. I a guy in the middle, who is starting to see you as a bigger problem than the illegal alien. Illegal alien can be deported, but I am not sure what can be done with that kind of world model.
<< Well in that case you could declare all protests
Do you get to protest DEA operation of disrupting local dealers? No? Then stop being silly with that weak counter.
<< Overstaying your visa is a civil offense.
And here we are. The siren song of the left. It is has the benefit of being true, but completely meaningless in context.
I had a longer argument, but I won't waste it on you, because you are giving me bumper stickers.
If it helps, I will leave you with one little nugget though. I am not sure what you think exactly, and I sure hope you are just a dumb kid, who simply didn't have a chance to see what real world looks like. Still, even if you are just a kid, whether you realize it or not, your stance does have consequences in real world and your immediate environment. If you do opt to champion those illegal aliens, who only committed civil offense, then you take responsibility for them. All of them. And don't worry, people, who don't will be sure to remind you of your commitments.
There's something particular sad about people that won't even admit to what they are in public. You know your right wing brand is toxic but you don't want to just be another cult member, so you pretend to be something else so your words will have more (or some) weight.
It's not working.
Have fun being the reason why the rest of your family hates Thanksgiving for the 10th year in a row.
<< There's something particular sad about people that won't even admit to what they are in public.
I don't want to beat the dead horse too much, but have you ever turned that inspection mechanism upon yourself? What did it see? Did it have to look away gasping at the impossible perfection of a celestial being? No? Odd.
You make me chuckle, which is the reason I am continuing in this fashion. Still, I am not even certain you understand what kind of conversation we are having now.
<< It's not working.
Oh, I don't know. Some seeds have clearly taken root.
<< Have fun being the reason why the rest of your family hates Thanksgiving for the 10th year in a row.
A lot of assumptions for such a short sentence. I will ignore it.
> This quote, often phrased as "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false," is widely attributed to William J. Casey, who served as the Director of Central Intelligence (CIA) under President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1987.
> While frequently cited in literature and discussions about propaganda and media manipulation, the quote's authenticity is highly disputed and unverified.
> I don't believe anything in Team B was really true
> [...]
> Casey was convinced that there was a single, organized network of evil in the world, [...]
He found the proof he was looking for in a book called The Terror Network
The Power of Nightmares | Part 2 : The Phantom Victory | Adam Curtis Ful... https://youtube.com/watch?v=KolgBqJ95ug?t=6m16s re: Casey, Reagan, Bush, Wolfowitz and why we've spent trillions saving the world from such dastardly evil since Carter's record-setting low EJK term (which was affected by oil price shock)
It's the people most convinced they have certainty over the mass web of conspiracies that secretly run the world that can never get basic things right, like attributable quotes.
People go to prison for attempted murder every day.