Turns out the tools used by previous administration and the expansion of executive power the predecessors created, doesn't disappear but carries over to the next Administration. Gasp. Shock.
Look, Democrats are suddenly concerned with civil liberties again, after 8 years of a "change" President who continued the "fascist" policies of his predecessor.
So, Barack Obama's administration has been expanding the drone program, and illegally murdering people from the air, for years.
But… It's the next president that we should worry about, pertaining these same drones.
The kind of opposite-speak that the MSM uses has reached ludicrous levels.
This is much like reading, "Ted Bundy fears that the ideas he created will be used as inspiration by future mass murderers as they kill even more people.", except that analogy doesn't hold up, because Ted Bundy hasn't murdered anywhere near the amount of people that the Obama administration has.
Yeah who would have thought that the "wrong person" would ever get their hands on the drone program and huge domestic spying program. It's inconceivable! /s
This is what all the civil liberties peoples feared: you make a big pot of juicy data and unilateral executive powers, and it invites expanding their uses and mis-uses. The misuser may be GWB, Obama, Trump, HRC, or the next guy, but because they exist they will eventually be mis-used.
It may be rank hypocrisy for everyone to freak out about it now, but I welcome people getting freaked out about it.
That said many fewer people seem to trust Trump and he is an unknown quantity, so it's easy to see why the freak-out exists even if in principle it was late in coming.
Please don't speak for someone else without at least trying to verify what they have said.
"Trump said Tuesday that he would be "fine" with restoring provisions of the Patriot Act to allow for the bulk data collection" [1]
"I think we ought to start [surveillance] up again, and we ought to start it up this morning. We ought to start it up again and get going. And use your head. This is a lot of nonsense that we ended that," [2]
There is hope that Trump will be appalled by drone strikes and the horrible number of deaths of bystanders they cause. I had the same hope with Obama and he disappointed me bitterly. Let's see how Trump will do.
Yes, if you actually read the article it's extremely critical of his policies with drones & surveillance.
That doesn't mean Trump is somehow the same.
We're dealing with a President-elect who has said he knows better than Generals & intelligence agencies. A man whose lack of temperament for the role has been apparent his entire life, a man who uses threats and intimidation along with poor self control, a man who has a history of using political power to pursue personal vendettas.
... that is - to put it mildly - rather concerning.
(voted down for pointing out the facts of the article, stay classy HN)
How many "typical campaigns" pay people, including explicitly mentally ill people, to commit violent acts to give an impression that the other candidate is violent, will bring violence if elected, etc.? (Granted, that didn't come to light by emails, but they helped to confirm it.)
And speaking of violence, how many modern candidates for President have seriously desired to commit high collateral drone assassinations in 1st World countries of people who aren't exactly making war on the US per se, aren't even under any US indictment? As I say elsewhere, Julian Assange is no doubt resting a bit easier.
And maybe it's typical for one party to have the press as a nominally secret ally, to hand a candidate complete questions they'll be asked in an upcoming "debate" or the like, but exposing that was worth something, yeah?
Ditto that one party's wiring the nomination for a particular candidate, something that at least this time didn't happen at the same level, hello White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, who's so establishment his name is all but a GOPe caricature, but who played fair with Trump as the head of the RNC. Ask DWS if it was worth it. Zach didn't exactly express that to her temporary successor.
And that's not even touching on the possibly traitorous criminal conspiracy of the foundations. Which I doubt Obama will pardon wholesale, and then we'll get to see if Trump truly wants to "drain the swamp".
>>How many "typical campaigns" pay people, including explicitly mentally ill people, to commit violent acts to give an impression that the other candidate is violent, will bring violence if elected, etc.? (Granted, that didn't come to light by emails, but they helped to confirm it.)
You mean the heavily edited video that the group who did the so called 'expose' refused to release in full?
>>And speaking of violence, how many modern candidates for President have seriously desired to commit high collateral drone assassinations in 1st World countries of people who aren't exactly making war on the US per se, aren't even under any US indictment? As I say elsewhere, Julian Assange is no doubt resting a bit easier.
That was a joke. Hard to take you seriously when you make things up like that.
>>Ditto that one party's wiring the nomination for a particular candidate,
She won overwhelmingly, no 'wiring' required. There was a reason no one else challenged her.
>>And that's not even touching on the possibly traitorous criminal conspiracy of the foundations. Which I doubt Obama will pardon wholesale, and then we'll get to see if Trump truly wants to "drain the swamp".
AIDS drugs for africa? Yup, treasonous activity. Hint: You don't use a charity foundation as a front for 'traitorous criminal conspiracy.'(that sounds really bad, and clearly not a collection of ominous sounding words you threw together in lieu of a coherent thought)The clintons made their money through the paid speaking circuit. Why the hell would they launder money/favors through their foundation? (Hint: they didn't)
You mean the heavily edited video that the group who did the so called 'expose' refused to release in full?
I mean the "heavily edited video" that, just, somehow, prompted the firing of the two idiots who said too much.
I didn't make up "Can't we just drone this guy", try looking at the results of this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+we+just+drone+this+g... and see that the people she asked this of realized she wasn't joking. And that's not the sort of thing people should be joking about.
She won overwhelmingly, no 'wiring' required. There was a reason no one else challenged her.
If no wiring was needed, why did they do it anyway? Is the reason no one else challenged her the very fact that they knew about the wiring? There's absolutely no way this is pardonable unless you throw all all the efforts of the Progressives to end the era of "smoke filled rooms".
The whole article is based on a false premise - that Trump will be able to use a drone program ONLY because Obama developed it for him. Otherwise he would have been sitting in the Oval office, wringing his hands, wondering what to do. Which is patent nonsense - Trump could have (and quite certainly would have) developed his own drone program even if Obama had banned drone strikes. The same as with torture. Of course, Obama's work will give him a head start, but no more than that.
28 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 77.1 ms ] threadBut… It's the next president that we should worry about, pertaining these same drones.
The kind of opposite-speak that the MSM uses has reached ludicrous levels.
This is much like reading, "Ted Bundy fears that the ideas he created will be used as inspiration by future mass murderers as they kill even more people.", except that analogy doesn't hold up, because Ted Bundy hasn't murdered anywhere near the amount of people that the Obama administration has.
This is what all the civil liberties peoples feared: you make a big pot of juicy data and unilateral executive powers, and it invites expanding their uses and mis-uses. The misuser may be GWB, Obama, Trump, HRC, or the next guy, but because they exist they will eventually be mis-used.
It may be rank hypocrisy for everyone to freak out about it now, but I welcome people getting freaked out about it.
That said many fewer people seem to trust Trump and he is an unknown quantity, so it's easy to see why the freak-out exists even if in principle it was late in coming.
"Trump said Tuesday that he would be "fine" with restoring provisions of the Patriot Act to allow for the bulk data collection" [1]
"I think we ought to start [surveillance] up again, and we ought to start it up this morning. We ought to start it up again and get going. And use your head. This is a lot of nonsense that we ended that," [2]
[1]: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/26167...
[2]: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/donald-trump-muslim-su...
It is saying, essentially, "The Obama administration opened Pandora's box, and now we have an evil, bigoted, fascist dictator inheriting all of it."
Most of the paragraphs are criticising obama and democrats that supported his efforts.
Yes, if you actually read the article it's extremely critical of his policies with drones & surveillance.
That doesn't mean Trump is somehow the same.
We're dealing with a President-elect who has said he knows better than Generals & intelligence agencies. A man whose lack of temperament for the role has been apparent his entire life, a man who uses threats and intimidation along with poor self control, a man who has a history of using political power to pursue personal vendettas.
... that is - to put it mildly - rather concerning.
(voted down for pointing out the facts of the article, stay classy HN)
And speaking of violence, how many modern candidates for President have seriously desired to commit high collateral drone assassinations in 1st World countries of people who aren't exactly making war on the US per se, aren't even under any US indictment? As I say elsewhere, Julian Assange is no doubt resting a bit easier.
And maybe it's typical for one party to have the press as a nominally secret ally, to hand a candidate complete questions they'll be asked in an upcoming "debate" or the like, but exposing that was worth something, yeah?
Ditto that one party's wiring the nomination for a particular candidate, something that at least this time didn't happen at the same level, hello White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, who's so establishment his name is all but a GOPe caricature, but who played fair with Trump as the head of the RNC. Ask DWS if it was worth it. Zach didn't exactly express that to her temporary successor.
And that's not even touching on the possibly traitorous criminal conspiracy of the foundations. Which I doubt Obama will pardon wholesale, and then we'll get to see if Trump truly wants to "drain the swamp".
You mean the heavily edited video that the group who did the so called 'expose' refused to release in full?
>>And speaking of violence, how many modern candidates for President have seriously desired to commit high collateral drone assassinations in 1st World countries of people who aren't exactly making war on the US per se, aren't even under any US indictment? As I say elsewhere, Julian Assange is no doubt resting a bit easier.
That was a joke. Hard to take you seriously when you make things up like that.
>>Ditto that one party's wiring the nomination for a particular candidate,
She won overwhelmingly, no 'wiring' required. There was a reason no one else challenged her.
>>And that's not even touching on the possibly traitorous criminal conspiracy of the foundations. Which I doubt Obama will pardon wholesale, and then we'll get to see if Trump truly wants to "drain the swamp".
AIDS drugs for africa? Yup, treasonous activity. Hint: You don't use a charity foundation as a front for 'traitorous criminal conspiracy.'(that sounds really bad, and clearly not a collection of ominous sounding words you threw together in lieu of a coherent thought)The clintons made their money through the paid speaking circuit. Why the hell would they launder money/favors through their foundation? (Hint: they didn't)
I mean the "heavily edited video" that, just, somehow, prompted the firing of the two idiots who said too much.
I didn't make up "Can't we just drone this guy", try looking at the results of this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+we+just+drone+this+g... and see that the people she asked this of realized she wasn't joking. And that's not the sort of thing people should be joking about.
She won overwhelmingly, no 'wiring' required. There was a reason no one else challenged her.
If no wiring was needed, why did they do it anyway? Is the reason no one else challenged her the very fact that they knew about the wiring? There's absolutely no way this is pardonable unless you throw all all the efforts of the Progressives to end the era of "smoke filled rooms".
No, it's me who needs to apologize.