Slashdot Mirror


Intelligence Chairman Accuses Obama Aids of Hundreds of Unmasking Requests (thehill.com)

mi writes: When American spies capture our communications with foreigners, the identities of Americans on the other side of the conversation are generally protected -- if not by bona-fide laws, then certainly by rules and regulations. A transcript of the conversation should have their name replaced with labels like "U.S. person 1". The citizen involved can only be "unmasked" with a good reason. In 2011, Obama relaxed these rules, making it much simpler even for officials without any intelligence role to obtain the identities. Predictably, certain top officials of the Obama Administration abused their access to get this information: "The [House Intelligence] committee has learned that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration," [Intelligence Chairman Devin] Nunes wrote. "Of those requests, only one offered a justification that was not boilerplate."

53 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The O administrative was probably the most manipulative administration ever.

    1. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would like to know a little more. If the administration was investigating possible collusion between (some) members of the incoming administration and Russia, it seems to me that they have to unmask the Americans, to find out who it is.

      The Obama administration is simultaneously being accused of not doing enough to act on intelligence that Russia was interfering with the elections, and also here of doing too much.

    2. Re:No surprise by blankinthefill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm, Susan Rice was National Security Advisor when this occurred. Considering the unmasking in question had to do with conversations between American citizens and Russian officials, and the unmasking is known to have happened only after those conversations were found to include possible collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, which is a possibly quite serious breach of national security... she was ENTIRELY qualified to make those requests.

    3. Re:No surprise by Train0987 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit. You are saying that an American citizen speaking with a Russian citizen must be evidence of nefarious collusion. This is all so ridiculous. One thing is for certain, NONE of us are going to like living with these new rules you are inventing to rationalize losing an election that you feel was owed to someone else.

    4. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a matter of perspective.
      Trump lies: "biggest crowd at inauguration," or "I invented 'prime the pump'"
      Obama lies: "we will not support terrorists in Syria," or "Keep your doctor, Keep your plan", "We do not spy on American citizens", "I will close Guantanamo", "Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after the election"
      See the difference, dumbass?

    5. Re:No surprise by skids · · Score: 2

      I would like to know a little more.

      Wouldn't we all, but we can't, due to the nature of the material.

      Which makes it the perfect political cudgel, since hands may be waved and pearls clutched about what might be completely justified activity, and the only recourse is a review by a FISAish court, which will take time, and in the meantime those pearls get clutched harder and harder and the water gets muddier and muddier.

      Next we'll be hearing that HC entrapped Trump into laundering Russian Mafia money all throughout the past few decades.

    6. Re:No surprise by sabbede · · Score: 2
      Did you miss the "no apparent intelligence related function" bit? That was the Ambassador to the UN. Why in the world would she need to know?

      For the most part, nobody outside the FBI, CIA or NSA has any real reason to need this information, and they're the ones who gather it. The FBI handles all domestic intelligence/counter-intelligence, so they need to know.

      Very few people need or should have the names of US citizens that might be involved until the investigation is concluded. The National Security Advisor doesn't need to know, they're a consumer of intelligence, not a producer of it or an investigator. Ambassadors don't need to know, the AG doesn't need to know, etc.

    7. Re:No surprise by I75BJC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seemed to have missed the point. The Obama Administration officials are not the investigative branch of the Executive Branch of the USA Federal Government. The Department of Justice with its FBI, etc., bureaus are the professional and appropriate investigative groups. The Obama Administration referred nothing to the DOJ/FBI/etc. and that, according to those raising the issue, blundered. The blunder may be inappropriate. unethical/political, or illegal--that's the purpose of this investigation into these actions. Administrators administer; investigators investigate. For example, the Ambassador to the UN is not the appropriate person to investigate into the integrity of policies and actions of the opposition political party (or even her own political party). The Ambassador can refer questions to the appropriate groups and the appropriate groups, if deemed appropriate, will investigate. The question of whether the Ambassador accessing personal and private information is disturbing to many people.

    8. Re: No surprise by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your narrative is utter BS designed to obscure your own party's failings. It's a big fat example of how modern liberals refuse any sort of personal responsibility.

      The party ran a candidate that has been HATED for YEARS.

      This hate was obvious to anyone that bothered to pay attention.

      The fact that she went out of her way to antagonize those people didn't help.

      It takes more than the right name to assume the throne here. Having a sufficiently charismatic husband is not good enough either. You have to be charismatic yourself. You have to actually be able to win an election.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re: No surprise by upl8n87447 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, and don't forget about Trump's National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. He effectively made promises to Russians re: sanctions prior to Trump being elected. He also took money from Russian interests, and he resigned in disgrace.

    10. Re:No surprise by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. Possible collusion like speaking to a lawyer that just happens to be a Russian national. Not every Russian is a KGB agent.

      The Russian in question seemed to have more ties to the DNC than to the Kremlin.

      It was an interesting sequence of events. That lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskya, was denied a visa to the US twice, as she wanted to lobby to have the Maginsky act overturned. Some time in 2016, the Obama administration (Lynch) granted her a special "probation" visa. It was an "extraordinary circumstances" waiver. It was to be a short stay, but she illegally remained in the country for months.

      At the same time, the Obama administration (Rice) had been denied twice by the FISA court permission to implement surveillance of Trump's campaign members and Trump tower. Shortly after this lawyer met with Manafort and others, viola, the FISA court granted the request.

      The meeting was arranged by the smear experts Fusion GPS, who were also responsible for the discredited "Pee pee dossier" on Trump. Looks like a set-up.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    11. Re:No surprise by Enigma2175 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no "Russian collaboration," there never was.

      How can you categorically state there was no "Russian collaboration" when Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort all attended a meeting specifically to collaborate with Russian nationals on Trump's campaign? This isn't some smear campaign by the "liberal media", these are things Trump Jr. admitted to.

      --

      Enigma

  2. *aides by richy+freeway · · Score: 4, Informative

    See subject

    1. Re:*aides by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First thing I thought of when I saw the headline. Slashdot could really use some copyeditors.

    2. Re:*aides by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good thing Trump doesn't read /., or he'd be tweeting about how Obama has AIDS.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  3. Campaign promises by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, Obama did promise more transparency in government. He never specified what kind of transparency.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  4. Pay attention to comrade Nunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the story you should follow, Americans. Not any of that other fake news.

  5. Re: Nunes is not actually Chairman of the Intel Cm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Read the article. Who gives a shit about the messenger, if the message is true?

    This is potentially massive corruption and a gross violation of the Constitution. It doesn't matter what administration did it or who is bringing it to light... It's fucking criminal.

  6. the foreign service by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unmasking private citizens who have not been accused of a crime should be a crime.

    Unmasking a public or political official who is trying to sell out the country should earn you a $3 fine and a gift certificate to Chili's.

    By the way, did the members of the Trump administration and his campaign team speak to anyone who wasn't Russian? And why do they seem to have such awful memories when it comes to these meetings when they're filling out (or amending) their security clearance forms? I mean, the Russians I know tend to be pretty memorable people.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:the foreign service by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unmasking a public or political official who is trying to sell out the country should earn you a $3 fine and a gift certificate to Chili's.

      Be very careful what you wish for. The US ability to collect technical intelligence is extraordinarily powerful. It should have very strong restrictions to protect the citizenry it is in place to serve, the violation of which should carry swift and harsh penalties as a deterrent to abuse. The officials in question had no business accessing the identities of any US person caught up in incidental collection, regardless of how bad the appearance of the alleged activity.

      Before Obama relaxed the rules the responsibility and authority to deal with collecting intelligence on US persons (whether as part of incidental or targeted collection) was the Attorney General and I am relatively certain that the authority could not be delegated. A proper procedure would be after discovering potential evidence of a serious crime (you don't want to use this sort of thing for minor offenses) the matter should be referred to the intelligence folks at the Department of Justice who have special training and oversight to guard against abuse. They then make the determination on how to proceed and make a recommendation to the AG on whether the individual should be unmasked or not. An exception for something like an imminent terrorist attack or other crime which could result in loss of life should allow for quick action but still require review and adjudication by the Attorney General after the fact.

      The kind of "bounty" program you suggest would do nothing more than invite abuse and promote a cavalier attitude among low level intelligence personnel. It is most definitely not in the best interests of the US government, the people in general, and potential victims of that abuse. Does that mean that some people will get away with crimes? Probably. But then our justice system is specifically designed to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, as it should be.

  7. Political purposes by Train0987 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This unmasking was for political purposes which makes it far worse. The sitting administration was running an intelligence op against the candidate of the opposition party. All the The Russians! bullshit is just a continuation of that op against the electorate.

    1. Re:Political purposes by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This unmasking was for political purposes which makes it far worse. The sitting administration was running an intelligence op against the candidate of the opposition party. All the The Russians! bullshit is just a continuation of that op against the electorate.

      Nunes is hardly a reliable source to digest this information. There was an active Russian intelligence operation to swing the election and a lot of indications that they were collaborating with one of the campaigns.

      That the Obama administration and intelligence agencies concealed as much of that as they did is remarkable, all they had to do is spill a few of these secret meetings and it could have changed the election. Instead they essentially let Russia succeed in swinging the election for fear of acting improper.

      Can you imagine watching that election spin out of control from Russian interference, having the goods that could stop it, but not being allowed to say anything about it?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Political purposes by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      So the sitting administration was using an intelligence op to unmask a candidate running an unintelligent op?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  8. Re: Nunes is not actually Chairman of the Intel Cm by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who gives a shit about the messenger, if the message is true?

    Looking at some recent tweet storms regarding leaks, it seems Trump does.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  9. Vague accusations from one of Trump's people by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's also worth noting that the "Intelligence Chairman" in question is Devin Nunes. He was part of the Trump campaign, and had to recuse himself from the Russia probe because he was providing more information to the White House about the investigation than he was providing to the investigation.

    I'm not saying that these accusations couldn't possibly be true. I'm saying the accuser isn't remotely credible. This is clearly yet another attempted smoke screen to help Trump cover his crimes.

    I think it's fair to disregard the accusation until someone credible steps forward with real information.

    1. Re:Vague accusations from one of Trump's people by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. It's a "vast left-wing conspiracy" that includes every major news organization and every one of the US intelligence organizations. Trump's campaign didn't collude with the Russians any more than Bill Clinton got a blow job from an intern.

    2. Re:Vague accusations from one of Trump's people by halivar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a stretch. Our intelligence services are staffed by life-long civil servants (who are predominantly liberal), and journalists are overwhelmingly liberal, also. After the JournoList revelation, there is no doubt in my mind that the press was an extension of Obama's executive branch.

    3. Re:Vague accusations from one of Trump's people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lolwhat? Out intelligence services are overwhelmingly staffed by liberals?! I want a piece of what you're smoking man. Our intelligence services have a well known and documented conservative bias, just like our armed forces and policing communities. But that doesn't fit your narrative, so we've got to have some 'alternative facts' I guess.

    4. Re:Vague accusations from one of Trump's people by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In almost every branch of the federal government, employees who donate to democrats outnumber those who donate to republicans more than 10-1. This is no less true of the State Dept. Defense Dept employees (that covers the NSA) gave 84%, and DHS gave 75% of their contributions to democrats, so they aren't quite as liberal, as a whole, as the State Dept. The only exception is the US Postal Service, where the numbers are almost (but not quite) in parity.

      Fact: Civil servants (including intelligence services) aren't just liberal; they're liberal enough to put their money on it.

      [source: Federal Election Commission report from 2016 election. You can search it at fec.gov, or find report breakdowns at many outlets.]

    5. Re: Vague accusations from one of Trump's people by halivar · · Score: 2

      It's no secret that most people do not donate to political cause they believe in, much less ones they don't. And given that FEC donation information is the best (possibly only) indicator we have of political affiliation, you need to show that a 90% skew in favor of democrats in all donations is somehow statistically insignificant.

    6. Re: Vague accusations from one of Trump's people by halivar · · Score: 3, Informative

      And to be clear, we're talking out tens of millions of dollars. So, not "a handful."

    7. Re:Vague accusations from one of Trump's people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't say that about "intelligence services" in general. The more militant end is certainly more conservative, but the analysts and more importantly the DC bureaucrats are most definitely on the left leaning end. It's this latter group that are the "civil servants" he was referring to. Then there is the entire State Dept, which is massively left leaning. Obama's DNI (Director of National Intelligence) absolutely rammed through the "sense of the community" letter that stated Russia was behind everything.

      The "Deep State" as it's been called is a real culture in DC, and it absolutely DESPISES Trump, regardless of whether the individual person would otherwise be left or right politically. A lot of the republican "Never Trump" wing were these types of people.

      It's not a matter of republican or democrat, it's that they hate Trump, because Trump is on the outside. They'd be perfectly happy with Clinton, McCain, Romney, Bush, Kerry, because they're all insiders. Heck, Obama was initially an outsider and had some significant issues in his first year in office from the deep state, but he showed he really was an insider by his actions, and then they accepted him. Trump is WAY too much of an outsider for these people, so they undermine him at every turn.

  10. Sorry, I'm going to want outside confirmation by blankinthefill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the same Devin Nunes that was accused of bias in the Congressional investigation into the Russian hacking around the Presidential election. As a matter of fact, he is not acting as chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at the moment (although he is still the named chairman) as he is currently under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics for disclosing classified information to the public.

    Also, lets look at what happened with unmasking towards the end of the Obama administration: Certain individuals around Donald Trump, especially Michael Flynn and a few others with exceptionally close connections to him, were unmasked after the routine capture of communications between Russian officials and US citizens was discovered, communications which helped oust Flynn as National Security Advisor, as well as being central to the current expansion of official investigations into possible illegal collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 Presidential election.

    Putting the above two facts together... until I have some outside, non-partisan source that is backing Nunes, then this looks like a blatantly transparent effort to probably paint the unmasking likely discredit whoever found and revealed the above mentioned conversations, in an effort to paint the entire Russia investigation as illegitimate. And, as a matter of fact, reading a number of sources, it becomes clear that is the EXACT intent of this move. They cover it up by claiming there was 'no justification' because the forms were mostly 'boilerplate'... Yeah, well, at LOT of forms are boilerplate, that's why boilerplate exists in the first place. Just because something is boilerplate doesn't mean that there was no justification. It just means that the justification is used enough that drawing up a standard filler for it is worthwhile. So until there's actual evidence of wrongdoing, Nunes is not exactly an unbiased person in this case, and he has proven before that he is willing to use his biases and act unethically against his political opponents in an effort to retain as much power as possible. If some non-partisan source can confirm what he claims, that's when I'll give these allegations any chance of actually being true, and the actions discussed as being illicit.

  11. Here Here by DumbSwede · · Score: 2

    I have mod points, but your are already at 5. This state of affairs can't go on much longer. I'm an independent who has voted for Republicans in the past, I even gave a campaign contribution to McCain once. But the Republicans have almost become the enemy of the people by their actions over the last 20 years. I suspect this is because the balance between conservative and liberal has been broken by demographic shifts within our population. The Republicans are on the wrong side of that shift. So they have settled on a course of using the money from moneyed elites to dupe the less educated by appealing to their desire to return to some imagined better days when Christians and Whites ruled the roost. If you are educated and support Republicans because of a fiscal conservative reason --.STOP. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Taking away healthcare or job training or other forms of financial assistance will not make our economy stronger in the long run. Trickle-Down doesn't work. Get over the "I-worked-hard-to-get-where-I-go-so-everyone-else-can-too" attitude. One, I suspect you had more luck and advantages than you realized and Two, if someone is truly unable to climb the ladder because they are weak or not smart enough, then it follows they should suffer or even die? And yes it was Republicans chanting "let them die" at various rallies before the last election.

  12. Nothing like governemnt working against citizenry by evolutionary · · Score: 2, Insightful

    President Obama allowed (and in this case encouraged) a lot of programs and policies that basically violated privacy of it's citizens, violated the constitution (see the data dragnet and court ruling on the programs revealed by Snowden), violated due process (see rendition of Americans) and even violated foreign sovereignty (see Drone programs). Every president has worked to increase the powers of it's position since George Bush Senior. We are losing credibility that we govern under a rule of law as we continue to erode due process, and find new ways muzzle and control U.S. citizens. Now any media critical of the current president is labelled "fake news" and given hostile treatment by the White House. Not exactly the free press were supposed to have. Question is, what the next attack on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and due process is to come this term.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  13. Better for Americans by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


    Side stepping that "Obama aids" misspelling is beneath any post...

    Isnt this sort of criticism from the same people that suggest that NSA and the like have access to every American's emails, bank accounts, computers, GPS data and so on? -you know because the terrorists win if not and what do they have to hide?

    Of course it is not a great idea for non-security related officials to be able to make hundreds of baseless requests but at the same time some of the involved agencies needs to be more transparent with the people they are protecting. ergo, the people. -the logic being the elected officials represent (some of) the people.

    So is it Obama's fault that someone this one individual made so many requests without justification? Or MAYBE it's the person handing it over not requesting/confirming/checking and or validating there is justification. After all you could be well within your rights to request something but that still needs to be authorised to avoid these situations.

    It's not like this is a blatantly biased article or cheap political click bait on a tech site. /sarcasm

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  14. Keep up the deflection by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's telling that the issue is trying to be framed as one about the intelligence agencies revealing U.S. citizens whose conversations were intercepted as part of legitimate intelligence gathering rather than the fact of collusion between a presidential campaign and a foreign government.

    We know for an absolute fact Russia was trying to, and successfully did, influence our election. The Senate committee, the House committee and the intelligence services all agree on that unassailable fact.

    Yet instead of being concerned or even upset at this interference, Nunes is trying to deflect from this fact to one of, "But people's names were revealed!", as if trying to figure out who was colluding with Russia is a bad thing.

    Another thing which is even more disturbing is the continued insistence, and outright denial, by the con artist that Russia either did anything during the campaign, or if they did, that they did anything wrong. This raises the very real question of why the con artist is trying to protect Russia? Why has he abjectly refused to say a single bad word about that country despite it deliberately bombing hospitals in Syria and coordinating the chemical weapon attack in Syria, not to mention its seizure of the Crimea from Ukraine, its invasion of Ukraine and its support for terrorist groups inside Ukraine? If this were Iran doing this the con artist would be bombing away, but because it's Russia, he lets them literally get away with murder.

    Further, had Hillary Clinton won and these exact same facts come out, you can be absolutely sure Republicans would be laser focused on who did what and trying to pin the collusion on her. But when it comes to the con artist, they are doing what they can to deflect from the crimes and protect him. Hypocrisy at its best.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Keep up the deflection by Train0987 · · Score: 2

      We know that as an absolute fact huh? Do you truly believe there is a single Trump voter who's today thinking to themselves "Dang, The Russians! tricked me!" You just can't possibly accept that millions of people would rather vote for an absolute clown than for your policies.

  15. Funnier because it's based on a Hillary quote.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Every major news org" is owned by a handful of people. And every US intelligence org didn't conclude squat. The ODNI report claimed "17 agencies" but in reality it said that maybe hacking was something Russia would like to do, it certainly didn't tell us that anyone actually did anything. And it was signed off on by a couple of political appointees. Oh, you also have that opposition report in which nothing of substance could be verified, which contained a /pol piss fanfic, and which allegedly came from MI5... (collusion with foreign spies!). Oh, it also put people in the wrong country because it confused them with people of the same name, displaying exactly the level of "raw intelligence" gathered (i.e. every random rumor from the internet). Even /r/conspiracy can do better than that.

    Half of the articles come from the WaPo, owned by Bezos, who can be found in Wikileaks running a clandestine fund-raiser with the DNC that the DNC's own lawyers had forbidden. Then there's the Daily Beast, so you're effectively listening to Chelsea Clinton there. Or CNN? Yeah, the ones who leaked the debate questions and lied to us about it being illegal to read Wikileaks? Oh, and then people told us the emails were "altered" never mind that we have DKIM validation via a key on Hillary Clinton's own DNS server.

    You can try to sweep all that under the "conspiracy" rug, but you realize that we have hard proof here, right? If you want to talk conspiracy, why not go after the hundreds of stories that cite each other and anonymous sources? Top officials have confirmed to me that most of these stories are completely fabricated. And who are you to doubt them?

  16. Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there's this big rejection of "leftist" ideas, why is it exactly that the ACA is still alive this morning?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  17. This is Kevin Nunes here by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That means that this is an attempt to generate a fake Benghazi type scandal.

    Let us know when a responsible person comes to the same conclusion.

  18. Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to break this to you, but Russia and China are not "left." They are capitalists working on building empires, run by dictators.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  19. Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Bullshit. The reason they didn't want to actually repeal it is because the second older Americans' insurance rates spiked because all the younger people pulled out or picked discount plans, there are lot of Republicans suddenly looking at serious problems when they have to seek re-election. Americans have made it pretty clear; they hate Obamacare, but they like the ACA, which shows you that branding is pretty important.

    And no, they're not going to let Obamacare die either, because the end result would be the same, spiking premiums that would screw over their own voters.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  20. more bullshit by meglon · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://www.rawstory.com/2017/...

    Nunes is a bigger lying piece of shit than even "mi" is, and that's saying an lot.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  21. Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

    ACA is remaining because the majority in Washington are left of center, Republican and Democrat.

    Only if you consider the Church of Ayn Rand to be the center. In the rest of the (real) world, the Democratic party is to slightly to somewhat right of center, and the Republican party is moderately to far right.

  22. Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

    If there's this big rejection of "leftist" ideas, why is it exactly that the ACA is still alive this morning?

    Because the ACA isn't really "leftist". If it were, the premium payments for all of the additional insured people wouldn't be going to huge for-profit insurance companies.

  23. Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat by Altrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What we're seeing is a slow, world-wide collapse of leftist ideology in progress.

    What we're seeing is a slow, world-wide collapse of democratic ideology.. regardless of what side of the isle you happen to like. Even in "democratic" states like the US, we're seeing all sorts of legislation being proposed to knock of voter "fraud" which, completely coincidentally of course, also happens to disproportionately affect democratic voters. Its was bad day when your choices for president were Trump lying to your face and Clinton lying behind your back. Its going to be a worse day when your choices are Trump Jr vs Paul Ryan -- that is, no democratic nominee at all. Even if you don't like the left, its pretty hard to argue that having an opposing view around is helpful to temper the worst ideas.

    But as an inherently unsustainable ideology

    You do realize that pure capitalism is equally unsustainable right? As with pretty much everything in the world, a balance is generally best. Well unless you're one of the guys at the top, then too far either direction is great as both ways give you nearly supreme power. But unless you're in the 1% (or maybe even 0.1%,) you're going to want to be in the middle where you can make your mark if you're lucky (not too far left) but not be entirely screwed when you're not (not too far right.)

    The masses have rejected leftism.

    No, the elite have rejected leftism, unsurprisingly. The masses have no idea wtf you're talking about and just vote for the guy who hates on Mexicans and Muslims the most (or whatever the baddie of the decade is if we're discussing other elections) when they see him on TV.

    Those promoting leftist ideologies know this is happening.

    Well this much is true.

    The problem isn't that we're moving away from "leftism." The problem is that the right has sunk to slinging mud and the left hasn't got there yet.
    Left: "Climate change is happening, here's shitloads of evidence."
    Trump: "Nope fake news!"
    Left: "Ok so where's you're evidence to the contrary?" Trump: "Fake news! Its all Hillary's fault!"
    Left: "That doesn't even make sense."
    Trump: "I know all the things. FAKE NEWS!"

    Its hard to argue like that when one side just refuses to even generate a point, never mind a conclusion. And unfortunately the proles are dumb enough to like the reality TV stupidity without realizing that they're losing things like their health care (Yay they can now "choose" to have no healthcare, or a plan that costs 4x as much as it does under the ACA. Too bad they can't choose to just not get sick..) Or their right to choose if they have an abortion or not (because the political right is overrun by Christian fundamentalists who throw their will around even though the US is supposed to have separation of church and state,) and many many other rights and freedoms that all get thrown under the bus in the name of making the already-rich a little bit richer.

    You are correct in that the world is moving away from socialist policies.. but I don't think your reasoning about the causes is correct, and unless there's some reversal, the long goal of the current political climate is toward oppression of the masses, rather than freedom for them, as more and more of the currently-middle class get pushed closer to the poverty line.

  24. Re: Not just party preservation. Ideology preserva by famebait · · Score: 2

    Funny how I completely missed the collapse of the Scandinavian countries while living there. Not much of a facts person, are you?

    --
    sudo ergo sum
  25. Re: Not just party preservation. Ideology preserva by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

    BS. ACA was discussed for many months with tons of hearings. The final text was known and scored by the CBO. Pelosi's comment was a joke answer to a request to read the bill aloud - a delaying tactic by Reps.

  26. What Pelosi really said by mbkennel · · Score: 2

    “You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

    Notice, "you can find out what is in it", not "we can find out what is in it".

    The "you" means "Citizens of the US." The "fog of the controversy" was the BS and lies invented by Republicans ("Death Panels").

  27. Re: Not just party preservation. Ideology preserva by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    The common description of the ACA - the very epitome of crony capitalism - as "leftist" is evidence that left and right are useless for describing real world politics under the financialist regime.

  28. Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat by Gussington · · Score: 2

    The ACA is an attempt to apply capitalistic principles to universal healthcare. Many conservatives would back it if it wasn't called Obamacare.

    This is the funny part, Obamacare really is Romneycare, but Republicans will oppose simply because it was Obama that introduced even though Romney did it first.

  29. why the individual States can't do it on their own by PlaynBass · · Score: 2

    The individual states are constrained by their own limited tax bases and can not bring the combined resources of the entire nation to bear on finding a solution to the problem providing true health care instead of this system of enriching the owners and investors of a few insurance companies who can (in the absence of governmental protections) hold every individual hostage to the unavoidable frailties of human life.

    The health care problems of the people do not have a marketplace solution because the participants do not exist in a state of equality, which is a precondition for arriving at a perfect marketplace solution. We are seeing the evolution of political and economic thought take place before our very eyes.

    The blind adherence to the political and economic theories developed in the past are no longer relevant in this post-technological era. Civilization has finally developed the ability to make a paradise on Earth possible in real time, for every inhabitant of the planet, if only we can find the true grit to move past the superstitions and false traditions of the past.

    --
    PlaynBass