8 ms·

We voted for Change in 2008 and here we are in 2011 fighting for basic democratic rights.

dsplittgerber 15y ago
Either people fell for good marketing or for the irrational belief that power does not change people. It was George W. Bush who once said in an interview that whoever becomes president after him, what he will get told every day (meaning security briefings etc) will change him. I think that's probably true only insofar as you as a president accept the basic premise that you are the Chief Watchdog of The American People and have to use ever more centralised power to guard your sheep. Edit: This is not really on topic concerning the issues raised in the article linked, I know. I am just replying.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  I voted for Obama in 2008 because of the major candidates, he had the best track record regarding civil liberties. I looked at the track record, and I was also deeply concerned that the approaches to health insurance law proposed by McCain would lead eventually to massive federal regulation of the sort we got under the PPACA. The thing though is I don't think that it's just the security briefings. Obama didn't slowly change. He ran out of the gate running the wrong direction and by April 2009, the EFF was calling the way state secrets privilege was invoked under the Obama administration "Worse than Bush." Instead what have we got for our troubles? more bodyscanners at airports, mobile bodyscanners deployed at various places, the DoJ arguing in court that random body cavity searches in airports would be Constitutional (EPIC v. DHS) and that the President has the Constitutional authority to target any American anywhere in the world with lethal military force (in the Al-Awlaki case) and that state secrets privilege extended to evidence against the accused. And through this whole process we are told that the Republicans would be worse and so we should just accept what we are given, and support our President as the fundamental protections of our liberty are assaulted again and again by the executive branch. This is where the voting for the lesser evil leads, because a lesser evil unopposed for fear of a greater one can do far more damage than a greater one where such opposition exists.
  - dsplittgerber 15y ago
    If you think the key to maximizing freedom/civil liberties comes from voting for the lesser of evils amongst Democrats and Republicans, you are greatly mistaken. Both care only about extending their power and playing to the tune of their special interests. Everything else is just marketing.
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      My point is that at this point, voting for the greater evil is likely more productive.
      - calcnerd256 15y ago
        That is counterintuitive and thought-provoking. Thank you for stating it explicitly.
        intellection 15y ago
        Your words encouraged looking at OPs words, giving that idea of daresay Productivity a second look. Profound.
      - presidentx 15y ago
        I'm stuck on the word "productive". Productive to what ends?
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        freehunter 15y ago
        Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. This, however, drastically relies on that notion being true. A backfire would be catastrophic.
        bencpeters 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
uuoc 15y ago
This is because all those who voted "for change" in 2008 all collectively forgot to ask the proper question: "just what is it specifically you want to change?" Now you start to see the changes....
nextparadigms 15y ago
Indeed. Obama and Biden have been pretty big supporters of MPAA and RIAA, which isn't really a surprise when you know he received a lot of his donations from them. US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations, otherwise it will always lead to situations like these, with the politicians, even in the highest Office, being in the pocket of the Corporations and signing new laws in their favor, regardless of what the population at large that voted for them wants.
- dbattaglia 15y ago
  US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations Unfortunately, with the Citizens United ruling it feels like we went the extreme other direction here. It makes me wonder if things will ever improve here (as far as our politicians go).
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    Senator Bernie Sanders brought in a bill last week to amend the constitution to invalidate Citizens United: http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-8... This is something that could actually pass if people rally around it.
    - dbattaglia 15y ago
      I saw this recently, and I really do applaud Sanders for still fighting the good fight, but a constitutional amendment has got to be one of the hardest things for our government to do. I just don't see everyone getting behind an independent liberal over an issue that most people seem to not care about anymore. <sigh> We'll see though, trying to remain hopeful.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  I agree that we have a problem today. But it's really unfortunate that when people see this, they immediately jump toward a solution that would cut to the very core of the First Amendment. It's the politicians who are really the evil ones here. It's to be expected that corporations will jockey for favor, and it's the job of the politicians to honestly weigh all sides and do what's best for the country. In that light, why would want to curtail the freedoms of the People in order to allow the politicians to keep following the same evil patterns? And that goes double, when the restrictions being contemplated can't possibly be policed. There are far more ways that a private entity can support a politician than through money or even in-kind support. For example, corporations could still easily and untraceably give favored politicians insider tips for when to buy and sell stock. As far as I can see, the only way to block the problem without shredding our 1st Amendment is by taking away from the politicians the product they're selling to private interests. That is, strip the government of power so that it doesn't have the ability to create winners and losers.
brown9-2 15y ago
The thing about Change is that you need to keep voting for it in 2010, 2012, 2014 etc. You can't change all of Congress in one presidential election.
- carbocation 15y ago
  You can change the president, the entire House, and 1/3 of the Senate in one election if you really feel like it.
omouse 15y ago
The most clear example that voting doesn't work and that the system is fundamentally broken. Join your local Occupy movement today!

Either people fell for good marketing or for the irrational belief that power does not change people. It was George W. Bush who once said in an interview that whoever becomes president after him, what he will get told every day (meaning security briefings etc) will change him. I think that's probably true only insofar as you as a president accept the basic premise that you are the Chief Watchdog of The American People and have to use ever more centralised power to guard your sheep. Edit: This is not really on topic concerning the issues raised in the article linked, I know. I am just replying.

einhverfr 15y ago
I voted for Obama in 2008 because of the major candidates, he had the best track record regarding civil liberties. I looked at the track record, and I was also deeply concerned that the approaches to health insurance law proposed by McCain would lead eventually to massive federal regulation of the sort we got under the PPACA. The thing though is I don't think that it's just the security briefings. Obama didn't slowly change. He ran out of the gate running the wrong direction and by April 2009, the EFF was calling the way state secrets privilege was invoked under the Obama administration "Worse than Bush." Instead what have we got for our troubles? more bodyscanners at airports, mobile bodyscanners deployed at various places, the DoJ arguing in court that random body cavity searches in airports would be Constitutional (EPIC v. DHS) and that the President has the Constitutional authority to target any American anywhere in the world with lethal military force (in the Al-Awlaki case) and that state secrets privilege extended to evidence against the accused. And through this whole process we are told that the Republicans would be worse and so we should just accept what we are given, and support our President as the fundamental protections of our liberty are assaulted again and again by the executive branch. This is where the voting for the lesser evil leads, because a lesser evil unopposed for fear of a greater one can do far more damage than a greater one where such opposition exists.
- dsplittgerber 15y ago
  If you think the key to maximizing freedom/civil liberties comes from voting for the lesser of evils amongst Democrats and Republicans, you are greatly mistaken. Both care only about extending their power and playing to the tune of their special interests. Everything else is just marketing.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    My point is that at this point, voting for the greater evil is likely more productive.
    - calcnerd256 15y ago
      That is counterintuitive and thought-provoking. Thank you for stating it explicitly.
      - intellection 15y ago
        Your words encouraged looking at OPs words, giving that idea of daresay Productivity a second look. Profound.
    - presidentx 15y ago
      I'm stuck on the word "productive". Productive to what ends?
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - freehunter 15y ago
        Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. This, however, drastically relies on that notion being true. A backfire would be catastrophic.
      - bencpeters 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

uuoc 15y ago

This is because all those who voted "for change" in 2008 all collectively forgot to ask the proper question: "just what is it specifically you want to change?" Now you start to see the changes....

nextparadigms 15y ago

Indeed. Obama and Biden have been pretty big supporters of MPAA and RIAA, which isn't really a surprise when you know he received a lot of his donations from them. US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations, otherwise it will always lead to situations like these, with the politicians, even in the highest Office, being in the pocket of the Corporations and signing new laws in their favor, regardless of what the population at large that voted for them wants.

dbattaglia 15y ago
US really needs to ban donations from corporations and cap individual donations Unfortunately, with the Citizens United ruling it feels like we went the extreme other direction here. It makes me wonder if things will ever improve here (as far as our politicians go).
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  Senator Bernie Sanders brought in a bill last week to amend the constitution to invalidate Citizens United: http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-8... This is something that could actually pass if people rally around it.
  - dbattaglia 15y ago
    I saw this recently, and I really do applaud Sanders for still fighting the good fight, but a constitutional amendment has got to be one of the hardest things for our government to do. I just don't see everyone getting behind an independent liberal over an issue that most people seem to not care about anymore. <sigh> We'll see though, trying to remain hopeful.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
I agree that we have a problem today. But it's really unfortunate that when people see this, they immediately jump toward a solution that would cut to the very core of the First Amendment. It's the politicians who are really the evil ones here. It's to be expected that corporations will jockey for favor, and it's the job of the politicians to honestly weigh all sides and do what's best for the country. In that light, why would want to curtail the freedoms of the People in order to allow the politicians to keep following the same evil patterns? And that goes double, when the restrictions being contemplated can't possibly be policed. There are far more ways that a private entity can support a politician than through money or even in-kind support. For example, corporations could still easily and untraceably give favored politicians insider tips for when to buy and sell stock. As far as I can see, the only way to block the problem without shredding our 1st Amendment is by taking away from the politicians the product they're selling to private interests. That is, strip the government of power so that it doesn't have the ability to create winners and losers.

brown9-2 15y ago

The thing about Change is that you need to keep voting for it in 2010, 2012, 2014 etc. You can't change all of Congress in one presidential election.

carbocation 15y ago
You can change the president, the entire House, and 1/3 of the Senate in one election if you really feel like it.

omouse 15y ago

The most clear example that voting doesn't work and that the system is fundamentally broken. Join your local Occupy movement today!