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
Remember how Hitler was able to suspend civil liberties in Germany? On February 27, 1933 Reichstag building was burned, which found to be an arson. This led Hitler to accuse communists of the terrorism, and he got Hinderburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties. Of course, Germany was in shock and most of the smart educated Germans really thought that this action would protect them from the terrorist threat of communists and anarchists.
That's how Hitler was able to come to power. He came on the power of the fear of the masses, willing to suspend their civil liberties in return for security.
More than likely there was enough money funneled into his campaign by the relevant parties that his opinion on the matter was bought and paid for.
You forgot Rand Paul.
Favors decriminalizing marijuana.
Wants to minimize our interference in other countries' affairs.
Wants to end the NSA spying.
Sanders will not get the nomination
Why are you so sure? The polls in Iowa and NH show him even with Clinton (within the margin of error).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Lobbyists. You really want to ensure no bullshit is happening, track every single registered lobbyist.
Those guys are doing FAR more to undermine your government by ensuring that corporate interests take precedence over everything else.
The ones writing checks are also writing policy.
The Copyright cartel (which is mostly multinational corporations) practically write laws and trade agreements for the US government these days, and the government is largely on the payroll of corporate interests.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
Sanders is the only one out there who makes any sense, and he's an unabashed Socialist!
Oh my god, not a socialist! You do realize that the US has a ton of socialist programs already in place, right? Such as... Social Security, Medicaid, etc...
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.
Philosophically he does, politically and legally he does not. He knows his personal views do not transfer to politics.