4 ms·
> We can fight it by electing the correct people. Can you point to any candidate let alone party (that stands a snowballs chance in hell of being elected) that
by deadbunny 6y ago
> We can fight it by electing the correct people.
Can you point to any candidate let alone party (that stands a snowballs chance in hell of being elected) that has "reduce surveillance" anywhere in their manifestos?
The last 70 years of Democrat and Republican rule would suggest not.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>Can you point to any candidate let alone party (that stands a snowballs chance in hell of being elected) that has "reduce surveillance" anywhere in their manifestos? Every year for a long time there has been a senator named Paul who has complained about this stuff nonstop. Nobody has listened because it is not a partisan issue. If this were a partisan issue we'd have billions of dollars behind it on both sides and the pendulum would eventually swing one way or the other.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chillwaves 6y agoRon Paul was not a Senator and his son just postures about such issues to get spotlight. I never see any action when it counts from Rand Paul. He seems to be just another enabler.
- amINeolib 6y agoRand is particularly bad. I can't compare him to Ron. Ron Paul was right and ahead of his time.
- monadic2 6y agoShahid Buttar, running against Nancy Pelosi, has a strong record of anti-surveillance activism and seems willing to run on it. Anti-surveillance politicians are out there, if rare.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoRon Wyden, Senator from OR
- kenneth 6y agoThe Libertarian party, which currently holds one Senate seat.