SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the dont-like-the-rules?-change-the-game dept.
An appeals court ruled the NSA's bulk collection was illegal. Rand Paul prevented the controversially named Patriot Act from being renewed, even if it was replaced a couple days later by the equally contentiously named "USA Freedom Act".
Mission accomplished? Not so fast:
The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months. The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop.
Maybe some branches of the government are more equal than others?
Original Submission
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:06AM
I know it's unpopular here to be at all practical about politics, but would voting for Romney really have been better? Oh right, I'm supposed to throw away my vote by voting for some fringe candidate I don't agree with (because they're nuts, that's why they're fringe) anyway when I can't get exactly what I want. Got it.
Anonymous because I'm not interested in getting into it with you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:31AM
I know it's unpopular here to be at all practical about politics, but would voting for Romney really have been better?
Both Romney and Obama are scumbags; voting for either is foolish.
Voting for someone you like isn't throwing away your vote; it's thinking in the long-term, rather than thinking about short-term consequences. Creating self-fulfilling prophecies where The One Party has no chance of ever being stopped or slowed down makes the situation far worse. Third parties don't even have to win; they just have to collect enough votes to scare The One Party candidates into accepting some of their policies to get votes back.
Oh right, I'm supposed to throw away my vote by voting for some fringe candidate I don't agree with
Why not vote for a third party candidate you do agree with? Surely intelligent people wouldn't agree with the status quo.
(because they're nuts, that's why they're fringe)
This just looks like a bandwagon fallacy. Furthermore, The One Party has brought us mass surveillance of numerous forms, endless war, the drug war, warrantless wiretapping, garbage like asset forfeiture, the TSA, and countless other things that violate our fundamental liberties and/or the constitution. How is that not nuts? Plenty of people are better than the scumbags from the main parties, which apparently you don't think are "nuts".
anyway when I can't get exactly what I want.
It's not about not getting exactly what you want. It's about not voting for candidates who violate our fundamental liberties, ignore the constitution, and engage in all sorts of corrupt behavior. Do you honestly believe this is simply a matter of disagreeing with the status quo slightly? If that is the case for you, then congratulations: You're an authoritarian, and part of the problem.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by HiThere on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:01AM
Sorry, but most "third party" candidates are crazy compared to the D&R candidates. They know they don't have a significant chance of winning, but they put the time and effort out anyway. Occasionally you actually get an idealist who isn't hopelessly disconnected from reality, and who know they don't have a chance, but want to raise the visibility of some issue or other. They will be ignored, but it can be reasonable to vote for them. Just don't expect to make any difference. (Sometimes I vote for a party strictly because the number of votes they get is used to calculate their funding during the next election cycle. Never because I expect it to make any difference. The law of large numbers mitigates against that.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:10AM
Sorry, but most "third party" candidates are crazy compared to the D&R candidates.
All of the things I said above are far more insane and evil than third party candidates trying to change their country for the better.
They know they don't have a significant chance of winning, but they put the time and effort out anyway.
Actually trying to improve your country is insane? If you give up, there is pretty much zero chance that things will improve. That's why I will keep trying, instead of creating self-fulfilling prophecies. Most big changes happen at a snail's pace; don't be short-sighted.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:32PM
I have voted for both Bob Barr [wikipedia.org] and Gary Johnson [wikipedia.org] for president.
How are either of these men crazy? They both have credible political experience.
While I don't agree with her, Jill Stein [wikipedia.org] also has credible political experience. Is this woman crazy as well?
Never because I expect it to make any difference. The law of large numbers mitigates against that.
Sad, but true. However, remember that the Republican party was once a 3rd party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:47PM
Many important changes came from people who did things that seemed to have no significant chance of succeeding.
Do you think when the idea of America getting independent was first formulated, there were many people who would have given it a chance? If all people back then had thought like you do, America would still be British.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:34AM
Voting for Romney would have been just like voting for Obama, so it would be neither worse nor better. There is one gross irony however -- if Romney tried to do the things Obama does, Democrats would piss and moan about human rights, privacy, freedom and justice. As ridiculous as it sounds to those like me who were conditioned to think of Democrats as leaders in the fight for human rights, our rights and freedoms are probably better protected when the GOP has the presidency because then at least one party will pretend to care. When the DNC is in office though, all that protest is not just muted, it is scorned. You have people like Marty Lederman who used to excoriate the Bush administration for using secret legal memos to justify due process free detention, authoring secret legal memos while in Obama's cabinet justifying due process free execution. That's an amazing WTF.
Getting back to that gross irony, it is pretty obvious that we'd be better if the equally crappy candidate had won because the DNC might actually react in a way that is good for human rights -- even if disingenuous, it is important to have that pushback. It's so sad that the best a liberal can hope for, is that the a GOP might prod the DNC into fake outrage. Puke.
Hemocyanin -- posting anonymously because I'm at a different computer and I don't remember my password.