9 ms·

I'm a US citizen. Born and bred. And, at this point, I can't in good faith say that I would blame you. I think it's pretty safe to say that getting rid of a

by bilbo0s 13y ago

I'm a US citizen. Born and bred. And, at this point, I can't in good faith say that I would blame you. I think it's pretty safe to say that getting rid of a President is no longer enough. My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government. And appear unassailable. I doubt very much that we, the American People, could even IDENTIFY the people setting or implementing these policies, much less rid ourselves of them. I think in the present environment, it wouldn't be imprudent for other nations to look to their own interests.

hexis 13y ago
"My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government." Yes, these people are our fellow citizens. There is no conspiracy, merely functioning democracy.
- detcader 13y ago
  "functioning" democracy?? are you joking? do you know anything about campaign finance?
  - hexis 13y ago
    I know some bits about campaign finance, but I also know that most people I meet in the US care much more about physical security than they do about privacy/civil liberties/etc.. They vote for people who implement nasty policies and they do not make those votes because they have been tricked.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  "Citizen are involved" and "the democracy is not function as intended and/or there is a situation that can not be rectified democratically" are anything but mutually exclusive.
  - hexis 13y ago
    Yes, true. It is also true that sometimes citizens knowingly choose nasty policies and then sleep soundly at night with those policies in place. Like you, I also do not approve of the way the US has changed, but I try to avoid tricking myself into believing that many US citizens feel the same way I do.
- rhizome 13y ago
  It may be a functioning democracy to whatever degree, but is it still a constitutional republic?
  - hexis 13y ago
    It isn't, as far as I can tell. But I think that happened a very long time ago, to great acclaim.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
No. Sorry. The President does bear full responsibility. That's the nature of the job. If he wants to claim he wasn't aware, OK. But he is now and it's his responsibility to fix it. Again, that's the nature of the job. If the President wanted to eliminate these programs, they'd get eliminated. It would require the exercise of political will, but it absolutely could be done. The problem, actually, is right here, when people start making excuses for our leaders. Stop. Hold them responsible. Responsibility is why the job even exists.
- cynix 13y ago
  > If the President wanted to eliminate these programs, they'd get eliminated. Just like Guantanamo Bay, right?
  - bigiain 13y ago
    Exactly like that. If Obama believed these programs (and Guantanamo Bay) were "wrong" with the same conviction Snowden believes – he'd do what it takes to shut them down, with the same career/livelihood risks that Snowden accepted. It's precisely the sort of moral compromises that Obama has made to allow Guantanamo Bay to stay operating, that have allowed the NSA to grab so much extraordinary power amd avoid any sort of reasonable oversight. I understand that "just closing Guantanamo" isn't as simple as it sounds - but letting things like that slide because they're complicated, and doing so for 40 odd years, has allowed a situation where people like Clipper think lying to congress is his job. Where intelligent people somehow perform the sort of mental gymnastics that allow them to claim collecting and storing personal communication isn't "collection" unless a person listens to the collected information. If the president wanted it to stop - he'd stop it. If he's not stopping it, it's because there's something he considers more important. He _might_ even be right. There might be a real and provable public interest reason why Guantanamo and the NSA have to be the way they are. There's no obvious or easy explanation along those lines – and it's super easy to cynically attribute it all to personal(and corporate) wealth and power motives which _are_ pretty obvious.
    - malandrew 13y ago
w_t_payne 13y ago
I believe strongly in "win win" solutions; in a broad internationalism that tries (at least in principle) to find solutions that benefit the whole of humanity (perhaps not uniformly, but uniformly enough to make everybody a net winner). That last phrase really spooks me. "Look to their own interests". Saddens me a bit, too.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
schuylerlarson 13y ago
I guess it's time for the ultimate exit.

by bilbo0s 13y ago

hexis 13y ago

"My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government." Yes, these people are our fellow citizens. There is no conspiracy, merely functioning democracy.

detcader 13y ago
"functioning" democracy?? are you joking? do you know anything about campaign finance?
- hexis 13y ago
  I know some bits about campaign finance, but I also know that most people I meet in the US care much more about physical security than they do about privacy/civil liberties/etc.. They vote for people who implement nasty policies and they do not make those votes because they have been tricked.
jlgreco 13y ago
"Citizen are involved" and "the democracy is not function as intended and/or there is a situation that can not be rectified democratically" are anything but mutually exclusive.
- hexis 13y ago
  Yes, true. It is also true that sometimes citizens knowingly choose nasty policies and then sleep soundly at night with those policies in place. Like you, I also do not approve of the way the US has changed, but I try to avoid tricking myself into believing that many US citizens feel the same way I do.
rhizome 13y ago
It may be a functioning democracy to whatever degree, but is it still a constitutional republic?
- hexis 13y ago
  It isn't, as far as I can tell. But I think that happened a very long time ago, to great acclaim.

waterlesscloud 13y ago

No. Sorry. The President does bear full responsibility. That's the nature of the job. If he wants to claim he wasn't aware, OK. But he is now and it's his responsibility to fix it. Again, that's the nature of the job. If the President wanted to eliminate these programs, they'd get eliminated. It would require the exercise of political will, but it absolutely could be done. The problem, actually, is right here, when people start making excuses for our leaders. Stop. Hold them responsible. Responsibility is why the job even exists.

cynix 13y ago
> If the President wanted to eliminate these programs, they'd get eliminated. Just like Guantanamo Bay, right?
- bigiain 13y ago
  Exactly like that. If Obama believed these programs (and Guantanamo Bay) were "wrong" with the same conviction Snowden believes – he'd do what it takes to shut them down, with the same career/livelihood risks that Snowden accepted. It's precisely the sort of moral compromises that Obama has made to allow Guantanamo Bay to stay operating, that have allowed the NSA to grab so much extraordinary power amd avoid any sort of reasonable oversight. I understand that "just closing Guantanamo" isn't as simple as it sounds - but letting things like that slide because they're complicated, and doing so for 40 odd years, has allowed a situation where people like Clipper think lying to congress is his job. Where intelligent people somehow perform the sort of mental gymnastics that allow them to claim collecting and storing personal communication isn't "collection" unless a person listens to the collected information. If the president wanted it to stop - he'd stop it. If he's not stopping it, it's because there's something he considers more important. He _might_ even be right. There might be a real and provable public interest reason why Guantanamo and the NSA have to be the way they are. There's no obvious or easy explanation along those lines – and it's super easy to cynically attribute it all to personal(and corporate) wealth and power motives which _are_ pretty obvious.
  - malandrew 13y ago

w_t_payne 13y ago

I believe strongly in "win win" solutions; in a broad internationalism that tries (at least in principle) to find solutions that benefit the whole of humanity (perhaps not uniformly, but uniformly enough to make everybody a net winner). That last phrase really spooks me. "Look to their own interests". Saddens me a bit, too.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

schuylerlarson 13y ago

I guess it's time for the ultimate exit.