4 ms·

I don’t think a discussion on the Patriot Act can not not be political. What people don’t realize is that Trump’s transparency of character didn’t allow him to

I don’t think a discussion on the Patriot Act can not not be political. What people don’t realize is that Trump’s transparency of character didn’t allow him to snake through bills like the Bush administration (I’m oddly suggesting the man was too honest to succeed in politics long term). A competent Trump could have orchestrated messaging similar to what the neocons did. Just look at the name of this thing, ‘Patriot Act’, whereas Trump’s initiatives failed so hard at messaging that things got called ‘The Muslim Ban’, which many could argue the Patriot Act might as well have been called initially. We lucked out that this guy was more into his own schtick than actually being part of deliberate cohort with an agenda. If someone on the right-wing gets the messaging right, intermixed with competent political infrastructure, we could easily see more bills like the Patriot Act in the future, especially since Trump showed there is a massive appetite for some of the toxic rhetoric in this country. Anyone that can package those ideas in a palatable way can snake in nasty bills named ‘Totally not nasty and very good Act’.

thre4234324 6y ago
> If someone on the right-wing gets the messaging right Sadly, left-wing is often far better at this, and even worse, they are almost never scrutinized. Obama's presidency is a case in point.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Edgy empty points are easy to score. I think this site tends towards more reasoned arguments. Can you please articulate in what ways you see Obama (or Clinton) as having had a presidency that was worse for America as compared with Bush or Trump’s legacies. Clinton maybe fucked up the free trade agreement a bit and hurt some important constituencies within the Democratic Party that were pretty important? Sure. Is that bad for the Democratic Party? Sure. Was it bad for America overall, long term? I don’t know. Obama misspoke (or potentially even lied) a few times about the implications of the bill? Sure. Is America better off with the ACA? By all accounts very much so. Was Obama more of a war hawk with drones than I might have liked? Sure. Was he as measured as he could have been? Maybe not. You ask others they’ll say he was too measured. Pretty difficult spot to navigate. Trump and Bush? Two major wars, 1 recession, 1 near major depression. And that’s just what Bush accomplished.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    I think if we’re keeping score, we have to strictly count the stuff that had lasting impact. Case in point, the Patriot Act was up for renewal just this year (20 years later). We still have not unequivocally withdrawn from the Mideast (almost 20 years later). Free trade, well, it changed the world totally (for better or worse), and should not be understated as an aside of the Clinton administration. ACA had a lasting impact (one of the few positives). Trump was unable to pass any lasting legislation (taxes can go up and down if we try to count that). In a sense, Biden could be a very consequential President as he will operate similar to Clinton/Bush/Obama, and I sense the country has forgotten how a determined executive branch can have you talking about stuff they quietly championed 20 years later (as we are doing now).
  - throwaway_dcnt 6y ago
    Drone attacks on wedding parties are what I use to differentiate Trump from Obama (and Bush and Clinton). I think the issue in your framing is lumping trump with bush when in reality, obama and bush are more alike (whether it is the merciless killing of people expressing sovereignty against an invading army or bailouts of wall street and wall street alone to the tune of trillions of dollars). Contrast that to Trump (who I am not a fan of) with zero wars started (despite ample opportunity in yemen) and a covid bailout that directly went to the people. Again, I did not vote for the man but facts matter, please don't get fooled by the same agenda even if executed by two (or three) different administrations with technically opposing parties.
    - mikeyouse 6y ago
      You are aware that Trump dramatically expanded the drone wars and loosened targeting criteria on those same drones resulting in far more strikes with far more civilian casualties?[1] The only reason it’s not in the news (besides the constant chaos in the White House sucking up news cycles) is because he also signed an executive order removing the requirement that we report all civilian deaths.[2] Pretending that Donald “Take out the Terrorists’ families” Trump is a some kind of dove is a new one, especially when he’s still trying to attack Iran during his final lame duck days in office. [1]- https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2020/Rising%20Civilian%20Death%20Toll%20in%20Afghanistan_Costs%20of%20War_Dec%207%202020.pdf https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20... [2] - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-revocation-reporting-requirement/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
redis_mlc 6y ago
Just to balance the above post, Obama was one of the most secretive and punitive Presidents in American history, and mounted a witch hunt against whistleblowers and journalists unlike any previous administration. So much for "Hope and Change" or transparency, especially for a constitutional lawyer. If you think Trump is a flawed candidate, boy, look into the background and behavior of Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden (and son.) The United States deserves so much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation%E2%80%93State_Department_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation%E2%80%93Sta...
hanche 6y ago
Triple negation in your opening sentence; impressive. I had to read it a number of times. Are you sure it says what you intended to say?
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  I guess I was wrong in structuring the sentence like that. Rhetorically it made sense to me, mostly to preemptively ward off the notion that a thread should not turn political.
swiley 6y ago
>We lucked out that this guy was more into his own schtick than actually being part of deliberate cohort with an agenda. Everyone I know that voted for him liked him for this particular reason.

thre4234324 6y ago

> If someone on the right-wing gets the messaging right Sadly, left-wing is often far better at this, and even worse, they are almost never scrutinized. Obama's presidency is a case in point.

vlovich123 6y ago
Edgy empty points are easy to score. I think this site tends towards more reasoned arguments. Can you please articulate in what ways you see Obama (or Clinton) as having had a presidency that was worse for America as compared with Bush or Trump’s legacies. Clinton maybe fucked up the free trade agreement a bit and hurt some important constituencies within the Democratic Party that were pretty important? Sure. Is that bad for the Democratic Party? Sure. Was it bad for America overall, long term? I don’t know. Obama misspoke (or potentially even lied) a few times about the implications of the bill? Sure. Is America better off with the ACA? By all accounts very much so. Was Obama more of a war hawk with drones than I might have liked? Sure. Was he as measured as he could have been? Maybe not. You ask others they’ll say he was too measured. Pretty difficult spot to navigate. Trump and Bush? Two major wars, 1 recession, 1 near major depression. And that’s just what Bush accomplished.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  I think if we’re keeping score, we have to strictly count the stuff that had lasting impact. Case in point, the Patriot Act was up for renewal just this year (20 years later). We still have not unequivocally withdrawn from the Mideast (almost 20 years later). Free trade, well, it changed the world totally (for better or worse), and should not be understated as an aside of the Clinton administration. ACA had a lasting impact (one of the few positives). Trump was unable to pass any lasting legislation (taxes can go up and down if we try to count that). In a sense, Biden could be a very consequential President as he will operate similar to Clinton/Bush/Obama, and I sense the country has forgotten how a determined executive branch can have you talking about stuff they quietly championed 20 years later (as we are doing now).
- throwaway_dcnt 6y ago
  Drone attacks on wedding parties are what I use to differentiate Trump from Obama (and Bush and Clinton). I think the issue in your framing is lumping trump with bush when in reality, obama and bush are more alike (whether it is the merciless killing of people expressing sovereignty against an invading army or bailouts of wall street and wall street alone to the tune of trillions of dollars). Contrast that to Trump (who I am not a fan of) with zero wars started (despite ample opportunity in yemen) and a covid bailout that directly went to the people. Again, I did not vote for the man but facts matter, please don't get fooled by the same agenda even if executed by two (or three) different administrations with technically opposing parties.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    You are aware that Trump dramatically expanded the drone wars and loosened targeting criteria on those same drones resulting in far more strikes with far more civilian casualties?[1] The only reason it’s not in the news (besides the constant chaos in the White House sucking up news cycles) is because he also signed an executive order removing the requirement that we report all civilian deaths.[2] Pretending that Donald “Take out the Terrorists’ families” Trump is a some kind of dove is a new one, especially when he’s still trying to attack Iran during his final lame duck days in office. [1]- https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2020/Rising%20Civilian%20Death%20Toll%20in%20Afghanistan_Costs%20of%20War_Dec%207%202020.pdf https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20... [2] - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-revocation-reporting-requirement/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...

redis_mlc 6y ago

Just to balance the above post, Obama was one of the most secretive and punitive Presidents in American history, and mounted a witch hunt against whistleblowers and journalists unlike any previous administration. So much for "Hope and Change" or transparency, especially for a constitutional lawyer. If you think Trump is a flawed candidate, boy, look into the background and behavior of Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden (and son.) The United States deserves so much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation%E2%80%93State_Department_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation%E2%80%93Sta...

hanche 6y ago

Triple negation in your opening sentence; impressive. I had to read it a number of times. Are you sure it says what you intended to say?

runawaybottle 6y ago
I guess I was wrong in structuring the sentence like that. Rhetorically it made sense to me, mostly to preemptively ward off the notion that a thread should not turn political.

swiley 6y ago

>We lucked out that this guy was more into his own schtick than actually being part of deliberate cohort with an agenda. Everyone I know that voted for him liked him for this particular reason.