Slashdot Mirror
Marco Rubio: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill writes: The debate over surveillance hit the 2016 race for the White House again on Sunday when Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he wants to add to American surveillance programs, many of which were created after 9/11. He invoked a recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a man who allegedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. "This the kind of threat we now face in this country," Rubio said. "We need additional tools for intelligence." Rubio also addressed the NSA leaks that led to this debate: "Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
People like like Marco Rubio, who think that any and every threat of violence is an excuse to make nearly omniscient government through every and any possible means of government, be president. He talks a game about reducing government. If/When the government attains the power he is talking about, then what's to stop it from using the power for other "unintended" purposes. He's a politician, he should know all about power creep. And he calls himself a conservative. I am tired of these people who claim to be conservative, complaining about big government, and then turning out to be power-hungry hypocrites.
captcha:tactics
Coming out strong in favor of surveillance is a bad idea. It's true that recent polls have shown the majority of Americans favor surveillance of 'suspicious people,' but among the people I've talked to, most are indifferent, some are ok with it, and a sizeable minority vehemently oppose it (this is something that I've found on both the conservative and liberal side. Whether you think "Bush is Hitler" or "Obama is trampling the constitution," spying is something you can appreciate as bad). Of the people who absolutely favor surveillance, even those understand that abusing it can be bad.
So he's coming out with something that few people are strongly in favor of, but a sizeable minority strongly opposes. Something like that is a political loser.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
See I prefer a Commander In Chief who actually treats the civil rights of US citizens as something more than an inconvenience to be trampled over at their whim. We don't need more "intelligence tools" that demonstrably do not make us any safer but manage to oppress us in the process.
I look forward to the day when we have a republican candidate for president who doesn't ear big shoes, a colorful wig and have a red squeaky nose.
The correct answer to crime or terrorists is not more surveillance but more guns in the hands of citizens.
Trump - blowhard asshole
Cruz - scary blowhard asshole
Rubio - no concept of privacy
Clinton - unindicted felon
Bush - aww hell no
Christie - not considered corrupt only by comparison to New Jersey
Fiorina - Enriches herself by firing people
Sanders is the only one out there who makes any sense, and he's an unabashed Socialist!
You're only lying to yourself if you're pretending that Rubio's stance is unique to Republicans.
One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing. Republican attack ads on Democrats made that a key issue (along with ACA).
But recent domestic attacks have caused the GOP to flip on snooping, in general. They are now pro-snooping.
I have to give them credit for taking advantage of both sides of the issues and leveraging voter forgetfulness. It's slimy, but it works politically.
Table-ized A.I.
That's not a small detail. That is exactly why all the posturing about "needing to do something" is all bull. Yes, it sucks that crimes, especially violent crimes, happen. But you literally cannot prevent them. Prosecute people according to the law and do your best to be vigilant in the legal enforcement of the law. Don't try to pass additional laws as if they can stop these things from happening. They can't. Even if you outlaw guns, it will happen just like this. Even if you outlaw Islam. Even if you outlaw people being in the streets at night. And based on wanting to protect my freedom, I'd rather not be breaking the law by walking around outside with or without my gun. So stop trying to pull this BS. Republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives...just STOP.
I completely agree. However, the problem is that the Democrats are not any better: in the last eight years, things have only become worse despite Obama's "good intentions" before he was elected and none of the Democratic or Republican candidates have put forward credible steps towards reducing runaway government intervention. There is simply no presidential candidate at this point that I would even consider voting for. All of them are part of the problem.
Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people.
Yes. Thousands of them. At least 100 million Americans, maybe more, agree with Rubio on this. Those people don't post on any of the same web forums that you or I do, but they exist and they vote.
I agree that Snowden was a traitor. (not for revealing the NSA collecting on citizens, that was whistleblowing. He crossed the traitor line when he dumped other documents such as the collection efforts on other nations. That was the treason.
That said Rubio is flat wrong, and is a dangerous candidate because he is for more invasion of privacy. We don't need more surveillance. We need more freedom.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Even moreso for those who say "We need our guns to protect against the government" while also saying "We need more government surveillance to protect against the terrorists." You're making the exact government you're claiming to need guns to protect against!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people.
Not really, no. And many of the ones they do talk to are fairly hysterical, racist, fearful and dumb. The republican base in the last few years seems to be particularly panicky and nuts. Used to be that the republicans were pragmatic economically and had a wing of the party where the kooks hung out that could be safely ignored. Now the tail is waging the dog and the religious nuts and the tea party loonies have gained enough power that they can't be ignored anymore. Combined with gerrymandered voting districts we've had both parties (but especially the republicans) getting more extreme for the last 10-15 years. If a politician isn't "pure" enough for their party they never make it out of the primary election.
Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?
Short answer? Sadly, yes.
Long answer? We've got a lot of dumb, fearful people who are religious bigots and racists. They'll vote for anything that gives them a way to act on these us vs them tribal fears and the mechanisms to keep the politicians from responding to these idiots are broken or badly damaged.
All this talk of spending more in surveillance and military makes me sick. Education is where money needs to be spent. Local infrastructure, innovation...
I couldn't not agree more. Education, infrastructure, research, clean energy, etc are badly needed. A larger military and surveillance state is not. We're borrowing to pay for a military that is way larger than we need and an inefficient and badly designed health care system.
Some list of guns that varies from one day to the next and one leftist to another. But your guns will be completely safe. Trust us. Don't be paranoid.
"If you like your guns, you can keep your guns. Period."
Progressives don't want HillaryClinton. They want Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
hile Trump would randomize everything
Trump is Pandora's box, please leave it closed, please.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Why? It's cool to insult him, but better to give reasons. Insults without reasons are a waste of a post.
Point taken.
Hey, Rubio! I am not, even the least little bit, so scared of "teh terrorists" that I am willing to let you and the rest of our government take away my right to privacy. No. Shut up and listen. I am not scared. If I am, the terrorists win. If you assume I am, the terrorists win. If you're just using the terrorists as an excuse to grab power for your corporate masters, the corporations win. In no case is this good for me, so start acting like the elected official you claim that you want to be and represent the interests of the people or get the fuck off the stage.