I apologize for the karma comment, it was a jerk thing to do so I removed it. Sorry. That said, I really wish you wouldn't take the thread wildly offtopic, I w

I apologize for the karma comment, it was a jerk thing to do so I removed it. Sorry. That said, I really wish you wouldn't take the thread wildly offtopic, I was just trying to answer the guy's question. And I honestly wonder if you read my second sentence. >Your comment is also pure speculation It's informed speculation, but is it so far out on a limb to say politicians are risk-averse and want to avoid being seen as soft on terrorists? Obama in particular is keen to dodge right-wing charges that he is weak on, actively likes (!), or IS (!!) a terrorist. >are you saying, politicians think there will be backlash and therefore stick to the status quo? I am saying politicians believe abolishing the TSA is risky, and possibly beneficial for their opponents. The risk is enough to outweigh the political benefits to them from such a move. That is why a critical mass stick to the status quo. It is very easy for a politician to understand why he wants to avoid being seen as soft on terrorism. It is harder for a politician to understand why he should stick his neck out on airport hassles. This is about odds and costs and benefits, not about people being certain in a binary way that something will or will not happen. If enough politicians come to believe that favoring the abolition of the TSA could motivate voters to their side, they will favor that policy. In other words, I'm not saying the TSA is with us forever, I'm just trying to help explain why it's still with us.