3 ms·

tl;dr "President Obama wants to make it a crime for a reporter to talk to a leaker" Worth reading it in full.

by gasull 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago
I don't get it. How can someone make such a drastic 180 degree turn on his principles and in such a short time? If there ever was a civil rights activist in him, how can he so easily go ahead with trying to harm US' historical press freedom so drastically by trying to make it illegal for a reporter to speak to a leaker, and prosecuting twice as many whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents in the past 100 years? I really don't get it and I don't see how a person could change so radically in only a few short years. Unless the whole initial campaign was just a major joke played on the American public, and it was all a set-up, saying that he'll turn things around from the Bush era, while he was actually plotting to continue his surveillance policies all along. There's also the blackmail possibility, but would the US president really be that dependent on a blackmail to change his policies 180 degrees and also continue the charade for so long? I think the second possibility, that he was lying the whole time, seems more realistic than this.
- gasull 13y ago
  About the blackmail possibility, the NSA wiretapped Obama in 2004: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama... Another possibility is that Obama is under a lot of stress (like any president) and those who advise him and were in power before him (NSA, the Fed, etc.) end up persuading him. This is perfectly possible if you are under stress and suffer constant interruptions that don't allow you to think long term. This is another way of saying that he's in fact a puppet, even if he doesn't realize.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    This is the charitable reason. He has all these possible risks brought before him and has to make a decision quickly -- why not err on the side of "safety", especially if the ultimate responsibility for that safety is in his hands. Plus a little blackmail if it's on tap.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  > How can someone make such a drastic 180 degree turn on his principles Those were not his principles, it was his marketing strategy and it worked. There is no honesty in politics, it's a game of manipulating the masses, not of winning a prize for morals.
  - hga 13y ago
    Indeed, this is an "I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on in here!" I disagree with you on the "no honesty in politics", successful politicians tend to have a degree of honesty that, when it successfully translates into policy and results, helps to make them successful. See my comments on Reagan and the economy and government financial situation, and ending the Evil Empire. See G. H. W. Bush repudiating his "Read my lips, no new taxes" and getting booted from office. See Clinton promising sane economic policies and delivering (ADDED: and after the demonstrable failures of LBJ and Carter). I think in general he was an awful president and no one denies he lies a whole lot, but when the financial guys pointed out what the bond market was saying, he accepted reality. I can't find the good quote from him on that, but here's the great one from James Carville: "I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody." ADDED: but that wouldn't seem to explain Obama's successful reelection. There's a more focused explanation which which still hinges on honesty: when there are two candidates, one is running on values, one isn't, the former wins. Obama has been honestly running on (hard Left) values, and beat two opponents who weren't. I think that'll also explain 2004, and it's been noted that if the Republican base voted like it did for W in 2004, McCain would have won; don't know about 2012, but "Hairpiece Q. Mother$*%&^$" as one former resident of Massachusetts conservative friend refers to him is widely thought to be the least principled, "value" free national politician in a long time.
- Corvus 13y ago
  While I have no personal insight into Barack Obama, I have dealt personally with several politicians; and while there are many earnest politicians dedicated to public service, there are also those who conflate public service with their own personal interest. I do not mean they are cynical; that they are lying or have abandoned their principles, but that their principles are directed solely to getting themselves elected. Any form of lie-detection or telepathy would reveal they truly believe they are doing the best, most moral thing by getting themselves in a position of power. I find this attitude hard to describe; imagine “I am a good person”, “anything that is good for me is good for everyone”, “I should be leader”, “anything that makes me leader is good”, “anything that restricts my leadership is bad for everyone” all merged together into one single thought. Perhaps “I am the state” is the best summary. This is how you get civil libertarians restricting others’ civil liberties, homosexuals getting elected on anti-homosexual legislation, and drug-users campaigning for harsh penalties for drug use. These people do not see any contradiction between their words and their actions; it is as if words and actions are the same thing to them. If I campaign for civil rights, then I am a civil rights leader, my actions are irrelevant. They do not seem to understand that other people can be good, that they themselves can be evil; or how restricting their own power could possibly be good. They do not seem to understand that arrests, investigations, or invasions, whether of privacy or of nations, which do not harm themselves could harm other people.
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    There ought to be a DSM classification for this type of disorder.
- tptacek 13y ago
  The idea that a President who's DOJ would aggressively investigate the leak of North Korean nuclear intelligence is an indication of outside blackmail says more about the person sharing the idea than it does about the President.
- peterjancelis 13y ago
  Because to win an election you tell people what they want to hear, once elected you give the lobbyists (this includes govt workers themselves) as much as possible. It's all about marginal revenue, the votes cast are a sunk revenue. Bush: Ran on humble foreign policy, expanded foreign policy drastically. Obama: Ran on civil liberties, eroded civil liberties drastically. The crowd that pretends to be outraged on principle depends on the letter behind the politician's name.
  - hga 13y ago
    Your dinging of Bush on his post-election shift to a foreign policy president fails hard due to it being after 9/11. And it's not like he didn't continue his promised domestic policies, remember Medicare Part D, No Child Gets Ahead, the all in effort that ruined the party for a while on immigration, and the attempt to reform Social Security?

tl;dr "President Obama wants to make it a crime for a reporter to talk to a leaker" Worth reading it in full.

by gasull 13y ago

tl;dr "President Obama wants to make it a crime for a reporter to talk to a leaker" Worth reading it in full.

mtgx 13y ago

I don't get it. How can someone make such a drastic 180 degree turn on his principles and in such a short time? If there ever was a civil rights activist in him, how can he so easily go ahead with trying to harm US' historical press freedom so drastically by trying to make it illegal for a reporter to speak to a leaker, and prosecuting twice as many whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents in the past 100 years? I really don't get it and I don't see how a person could change so radically in only a few short years. Unless the whole initial campaign was just a major joke played on the American public, and it was all a set-up, saying that he'll turn things around from the Bush era, while he was actually plotting to continue his surveillance policies all along. There's also the blackmail possibility, but would the US president really be that dependent on a blackmail to change his policies 180 degrees and also continue the charade for so long? I think the second possibility, that he was lying the whole time, seems more realistic than this.

gasull 13y ago
About the blackmail possibility, the NSA wiretapped Obama in 2004: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama... Another possibility is that Obama is under a lot of stress (like any president) and those who advise him and were in power before him (NSA, the Fed, etc.) end up persuading him. This is perfectly possible if you are under stress and suffer constant interruptions that don't allow you to think long term. This is another way of saying that he's in fact a puppet, even if he doesn't realize.
- pstuart 13y ago
  This is the charitable reason. He has all these possible risks brought before him and has to make a decision quickly -- why not err on the side of "safety", especially if the ultimate responsibility for that safety is in his hands. Plus a little blackmail if it's on tap.
lazyjones 13y ago
> How can someone make such a drastic 180 degree turn on his principles Those were not his principles, it was his marketing strategy and it worked. There is no honesty in politics, it's a game of manipulating the masses, not of winning a prize for morals.
- hga 13y ago
  Indeed, this is an "I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on in here!" I disagree with you on the "no honesty in politics", successful politicians tend to have a degree of honesty that, when it successfully translates into policy and results, helps to make them successful. See my comments on Reagan and the economy and government financial situation, and ending the Evil Empire. See G. H. W. Bush repudiating his "Read my lips, no new taxes" and getting booted from office. See Clinton promising sane economic policies and delivering (ADDED: and after the demonstrable failures of LBJ and Carter). I think in general he was an awful president and no one denies he lies a whole lot, but when the financial guys pointed out what the bond market was saying, he accepted reality. I can't find the good quote from him on that, but here's the great one from James Carville: "I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody." ADDED: but that wouldn't seem to explain Obama's successful reelection. There's a more focused explanation which which still hinges on honesty: when there are two candidates, one is running on values, one isn't, the former wins. Obama has been honestly running on (hard Left) values, and beat two opponents who weren't. I think that'll also explain 2004, and it's been noted that if the Republican base voted like it did for W in 2004, McCain would have won; don't know about 2012, but "Hairpiece Q. Mother$*%&^$" as one former resident of Massachusetts conservative friend refers to him is widely thought to be the least principled, "value" free national politician in a long time.
Corvus 13y ago
While I have no personal insight into Barack Obama, I have dealt personally with several politicians; and while there are many earnest politicians dedicated to public service, there are also those who conflate public service with their own personal interest. I do not mean they are cynical; that they are lying or have abandoned their principles, but that their principles are directed solely to getting themselves elected. Any form of lie-detection or telepathy would reveal they truly believe they are doing the best, most moral thing by getting themselves in a position of power. I find this attitude hard to describe; imagine “I am a good person”, “anything that is good for me is good for everyone”, “I should be leader”, “anything that makes me leader is good”, “anything that restricts my leadership is bad for everyone” all merged together into one single thought. Perhaps “I am the state” is the best summary. This is how you get civil libertarians restricting others’ civil liberties, homosexuals getting elected on anti-homosexual legislation, and drug-users campaigning for harsh penalties for drug use. These people do not see any contradiction between their words and their actions; it is as if words and actions are the same thing to them. If I campaign for civil rights, then I am a civil rights leader, my actions are irrelevant. They do not seem to understand that other people can be good, that they themselves can be evil; or how restricting their own power could possibly be good. They do not seem to understand that arrests, investigations, or invasions, whether of privacy or of nations, which do not harm themselves could harm other people.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  There ought to be a DSM classification for this type of disorder.
tptacek 13y ago
The idea that a President who's DOJ would aggressively investigate the leak of North Korean nuclear intelligence is an indication of outside blackmail says more about the person sharing the idea than it does about the President.
peterjancelis 13y ago
Because to win an election you tell people what they want to hear, once elected you give the lobbyists (this includes govt workers themselves) as much as possible. It's all about marginal revenue, the votes cast are a sunk revenue. Bush: Ran on humble foreign policy, expanded foreign policy drastically. Obama: Ran on civil liberties, eroded civil liberties drastically. The crowd that pretends to be outraged on principle depends on the letter behind the politician's name.
- hga 13y ago
  Your dinging of Bush on his post-election shift to a foreign policy president fails hard due to it being after 9/11. And it's not like he didn't continue his promised domestic policies, remember Medicare Part D, No Child Gets Ahead, the all in effort that ruined the party for a while on immigration, and the attempt to reform Social Security?