4 ms·
I used to live in a (now ex-)communist country, where state authorities blatantly breaching citizens' privacy and spying on their every activity was pretty much
by weland 13y ago
I used to live in a (now ex-)communist country, where state authorities blatantly breaching citizens' privacy and spying on their every activity was pretty much usual.
You're in great error thinking this has something -- anything -- to do with a president in particular, or with a few people at the top of the decision-making chain. It doesn't. My own country changed two dictators (and a handful of "democratic" regimes afterwards) without this matter being solved.
It's a combination of two things:
* A large block that supports such decisions and even actively pushes for them. The elected President will only be there to implement them for two terms at most, but the people supporting them have no cap on their term. Since two presidents from two different parties (it doesn't help that they're basically the only two parties you have...) did similar shit, it's only safe to assume that either both parties have such groups, or that the groups who are supporting them aren't affiliated to any party in particular.
* Woeful lack of alternatives from your voters and, quite possibly, misinformed voting (although the second is something I can only intuitively state, as I don't live in the US). The people who deal in power are greedy; if they had any reason to believe this kind of stuff would have their asses bust out of office, they'd stop doing it. However, my own experience tells me what they feel is that this kind of crap actually ensures their continuous tenure in their offices.
Also, while we would all wish everyone realized how dangerous this is, the sad truth is most people don't care, or don't realize the atrocity of it. We are a minority; a handful of well-educated people who can think for themselves and who can fully grasp the intrusiveness of such surveillance. Most people simply don't realize enough to care that "the State" (whatever the hell that is) knows who they were calling and when -- after all, who in the world has time to sift through all those pages of phone calls, eh?
- rhizome 13y agoI have a conspiracy theory that the Republicans fielded such sure-losers as McCain and Romney specifically so that these continuations of policies would legitimized through the lens of bipartisanship.
- weland 13y agoAs I said above, I don't live in the US, so I can't claim to have a reasonable grip on the important discussion themes (I am slightly more informed on the actual problems on the agendas, but those play little part in the election game), but my two cents on this issue is that, after Bush's term, anyone fielded by the Republicans would have been a sure-loser. It also didn't help that, in a country whose social inequity wounds are opening again, the Republican fielded an annoying dick like Romney. On the other hand, I can't suspect people like Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin of being smart enough (or of not being blinded by their sheer arrogance) of being able to dodge a puppet role. In fact, if I were an evil overlord and had to choose a set of figureheads to deploy as autonomous, but ultimately manipulable characters for my puppetmaster role, I'd choose people like them. It's scary that folks also seem to vote for people like them, though.
- PavlovsCat 13y agoRemember Kerry? The french looking guy with no charisma at all?
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoNo, Romney was just the proper embodiment of current Republican ideology.