5 ms·

This sounds like surprisingly good news. I would be curious what caused the shift. > “The two-thirds of the Republican party that voted for this bill in March

This sounds like surprisingly good news. I would be curious what caused the shift. > “The two-thirds of the Republican party that voted for this bill in March have indicated they are going to vote against it now,” Mr. [House Majority Leader ]Hoyer said. “I am told they are doing so at the request of the President. I believe this to be against the security interest of the United States and the safety of the American people.”

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bkohlmann 6y ago
The power of the Presidency, especially within the party of the President, cannot be overstated - especially in the current political age. Similar to how when the Democratic Speaker tells her colleagues to fall in line...they tend to comply.
zitterbewegung 6y ago
Why waste time to vote when its going to be vetoed? Also, you can claim in the future that you didn't vote for the bill. It benefits both parties.
- cletus 6y ago
  That actually works both ways though. Voting for a bill you know will never get enacted allows you to argue you voted for it but someone else killed it. There's a huge potential for virtue signaling.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    This is a rare instance where progressive Democrats have been outspoken critics of this bill (though most still voted for it) and now Republicans have done a complete U-turn (publicly, at least, following Trump’s lead) and agree. There isn’t much virtue to signal when the opposition is bipartisan.
    - csharptwdec19 6y ago
      except the pending virtue signalling of people in each party being 'bipartisan' as a result of this event...
      - elliekelly 6y ago
        That’s a fair point. But in this case I suspect it’s a “you win this time” and not a “you win.” I don’t think this is the end of Patriot Act wiretapping but I hope I’m wrong.
elliekelly 6y ago
His tweets suggest that he believes his privacy had previously been invaded by FISA court-approved wiretapping under the Obama administration. Like most things he says, that seems to be mostly false but based in a shred of truth: someone from his campaign was subject to wiretapping approved by a FISA court as part of the Russian election interference investigation. He’s linking FISA to his “Obamagate” conspiracy. This explains his party’s push to add language to the bill providing additional due process before a FISA court could approve wiretapping a candidate for an elected office in the federal government. A win for civil rights is a win for civil rights though. I hope.
- 4bpp 6y ago
  Might wind up being a net loss, because now Democrat-associated civil rights organisations such as the ACLU will be reluctant to be seen opposing FISA courts lest they be accused of providing fire support to Trump. Nominally one would expect Republican-aligned or neutral organisations to pick up the slack to the same extent as the Democrat ones drop it, but I am not aware of any ones that are similarly established and effective in the civil liberties niche.
  - panzagl 6y ago
    So do you really believe in civil rights or do you just care that your team wins?
    - 4bpp 6y ago
      Which side are you even insinuating is "my team"...? I can assure you I care about civil rights legislation in the US (which affects the whole Western world, since the US controls every major piece of ASCII-based WWW) more than I care about either political party in the US winning, not being American myself. What I was trying to say with my previous post is that I suspect that _most organisations_ that would be in a position to defend said civil rights legislation really just care that their team wins, which is a problem for civil rights if civil rights wind up being seen as a win for the other team.
cwhiz 6y ago
>I believe this to be against the security interest of the United States and the safety of the American people. This fear mongering is so pathetic.
GoodJokes 6y ago
Progressive democrats bucked shitty party leadership (pelosi).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bkohlmann 6y ago

The power of the Presidency, especially within the party of the President, cannot be overstated - especially in the current political age. Similar to how when the Democratic Speaker tells her colleagues to fall in line...they tend to comply.

zitterbewegung 6y ago

Why waste time to vote when its going to be vetoed? Also, you can claim in the future that you didn't vote for the bill. It benefits both parties.

cletus 6y ago
That actually works both ways though. Voting for a bill you know will never get enacted allows you to argue you voted for it but someone else killed it. There's a huge potential for virtue signaling.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  This is a rare instance where progressive Democrats have been outspoken critics of this bill (though most still voted for it) and now Republicans have done a complete U-turn (publicly, at least, following Trump’s lead) and agree. There isn’t much virtue to signal when the opposition is bipartisan.
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    except the pending virtue signalling of people in each party being 'bipartisan' as a result of this event...
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      That’s a fair point. But in this case I suspect it’s a “you win this time” and not a “you win.” I don’t think this is the end of Patriot Act wiretapping but I hope I’m wrong.

elliekelly 6y ago

His tweets suggest that he believes his privacy had previously been invaded by FISA court-approved wiretapping under the Obama administration. Like most things he says, that seems to be mostly false but based in a shred of truth: someone from his campaign was subject to wiretapping approved by a FISA court as part of the Russian election interference investigation. He’s linking FISA to his “Obamagate” conspiracy. This explains his party’s push to add language to the bill providing additional due process before a FISA court could approve wiretapping a candidate for an elected office in the federal government. A win for civil rights is a win for civil rights though. I hope.

4bpp 6y ago
Might wind up being a net loss, because now Democrat-associated civil rights organisations such as the ACLU will be reluctant to be seen opposing FISA courts lest they be accused of providing fire support to Trump. Nominally one would expect Republican-aligned or neutral organisations to pick up the slack to the same extent as the Democrat ones drop it, but I am not aware of any ones that are similarly established and effective in the civil liberties niche.
- panzagl 6y ago
  So do you really believe in civil rights or do you just care that your team wins?
  - 4bpp 6y ago
    Which side are you even insinuating is "my team"...? I can assure you I care about civil rights legislation in the US (which affects the whole Western world, since the US controls every major piece of ASCII-based WWW) more than I care about either political party in the US winning, not being American myself. What I was trying to say with my previous post is that I suspect that _most organisations_ that would be in a position to defend said civil rights legislation really just care that their team wins, which is a problem for civil rights if civil rights wind up being seen as a win for the other team.

cwhiz 6y ago

>I believe this to be against the security interest of the United States and the safety of the American people. This fear mongering is so pathetic.

GoodJokes 6y ago

Progressive democrats bucked shitty party leadership (pelosi).