I completely agree. This is a conspiracy by definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." The unlawful thing being the laws they are trying to pass (as they are not yet laws, and not determined by lawful structures: judicial system). Its all going from executive to legislative, and we are fucked.
The administration is attempting to weaken our sovereignty and globalize [overthrow] our government. They should be charged for treason.
If you voted Obama last time, please don't vote this time. Your bad judgement isn't necessary.
Blaming the standing president for systematic problems is a fairly reliable sign that someone is a member of the opposite party (or an independent that always votes one way, natch). Even if that somehow happens to not be the case for you, there's the little problem that we have a FPTP voting system which effectively means that elections always boil down to two options (assuming that you're a rational actor who understands vote splitting). Claiming that voting for one option shows "bad judgement" implies that the alternative (remember, FPTP => only one rational alternative) is better, so it really is a partisan statement.
Sanity check: would a statement of the form "Obama is bad because x,y,z" be necessarily partisan by this logic? No.
> Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself.
Sure you can, but for now that's a largely speculative failure mode. First let's solve the problem that our system effectively imposes a mandatory bribe quota on the candidates and see if that doesn't improve matters. If the problem you propose becomes an issue afterwards then we can fight over the whole "money is speech" argument.
His point (although a little too blunt for me) was that Obama was this "hope and change" guy that was going to be transparent and all of that nonsense. Even though he's ultimately powerless in matters like this, if he were truly a man of character he would at least speak against it. The problem is the systems we have will not allow men of character to get within sniffing distance of that position.
There are the Cheneys of the world who seem to emit darkness and there are the Obamas of the world who offer an alternative but then do the same thing. Which one is worse?
"The Government shall compensate a person for reasonable expenses incurred for producing tangible things"... Great! Thirty pieces of silver for everyone!
Oh come on. That's not an issue by itself, it's perfectly reasonable under proper oversight to require that someone turn over material evidence. That's never been controversial.
Well... the draconian overreach of the third party doctrine, including the in praxis requirement to backdoor services sold to the public, is and certainly has been controversial, as have tap and trace laws.
In fact, the only reason the Section 215 even had a sunset clause was because the legislature was so uncertain about the legislation that they wanted to put in an escape clause.
From take action with Google: "Senator * said YES to USA Freedom. Say thank you and show your support." "Thank your Senator now for saying YES to the USA Freedom Act."
Freedom Act (Patriot Act v 2.0.. Same author: Rep. Sensenbrenner) must be vetoed... Someone please start a change.org thing, or whatever.
Freedom Act is going to require everyone to keep records for the NSA... Simple fix for the no funding problem... "No datacenter, no problem; we'll use yours"
Note that "security" is (or ought to be) in massive finger-quotes here. Bulk data collection like this is actually a liability in terms of data security, not an asset, due to being a large target for attack.
The administration is attempting to weaken our sovereignty and globalize [overthrow] our government. They should be charged for treason.
If you voted Obama last time, please don't vote this time. Your bad judgement isn't necessary.