7 ms·
None. There are no changes. He is reviewing a transition to changes. And remember, these are only executive changes, which means if the next president is worse
by ck2 13y ago
None. There are no changes. He is reviewing a transition to changes.
And remember, these are only executive changes, which means if the next president is worse, well then the changes can be undone with the stroke of a single pen by a single person (and they might even decide not to tell the public).
The permanent bulk collection of data continues for future use by any president or agency when the laws don't hinder them. It's a library they can peruse now or 50 years from now.
ps. someone needs to do a mashup of his first campaign speech to end abuses, arguing against this other person
- res0nat0r 13y agoYes but bulk metadata collection hasn't been ruled illegal...
- tribe 13y agoThis is exactly the problem. As ck2 seems to be suggesting, laws should be passed which make it illegal. At least, that is how I interpreted her critiques of "executive changes"
- ck2 13y agoYes it has to be done at the congressional level, not executive, to make it much much harder to undo and with public exposure. But considering the state of our congress, we're screwed.
- AutoCorrect 13y agowe already have a Constitution. how many more laws do we need to state the obvious? The problem isn't a lack of laws, it's a lack of an Enforcement group that is above partisan politics.
- tootie 13y agoMetadata collection has been upheld in court.
- rtpg 13y agofrom what I recall most of the data programs wouldn't keep stuff after 5 years, but that's slightly pedanting (on your "50 years" comment). He could ask congress to pass laws, but he's the executive, and considering the executive's contempt for all things from congress, down to the right of congress to check the executive's use of the military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions...), one can't hope for too much. At the very least, these executive orders being put into place means that he's signaling Congress that he wouldn't necessarily be against rollbacks of certain points. If you want a law passed, ask Congress.
- CodeMage 13y agoReminds me of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation": Lundin Crast said, "And where is the analysis?" "That," replied Hardin, "is the interesting thing. The analysis was the most difficult of the three by all odds. When Holk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications in short, all the goo and dribble he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out." "Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed. There are the assurances you had from your precious Empire."
- 27182818284 13y agoEver since the first time I've read that, I've wanted newspapers to do that. Then when I learned about diffs and similar styles, I've wanted it to be done with strikethroughs or red -- and ++ marking up the actual speech's text.
- chimeracoder 13y ago> ps. someone needs to do a mashup of his first campaign speech to end abuses, arguing against this other person Here you go. It's rather painful to watch, as you might expect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 (FYI, I did not make this video)
- tigersharktopus 13y agoVoted for change. Obama is the one who changed.
- Shivetya 13y agoI seem to recall there was a recent election where this could have been corrected. If you vote for the lesser of two evils its not like your going to benefit. Until no politician/President can guarantee himself a second term will they ever feel accountable to the public. Yet the one thing they will count on is the ability to play on voters irrational fears/views of the other guy.
- scarmig 13y agoHow could it have been corrected? Though I hesitate to say Romney would have been worse, he gave no indication of being better. Plus, campaign promises have a tendency toward melting away when facing hard reality. Even if a Green or Libertarian candidate had won (absolutely 0% chance), there's no reason to think they'd have followed through on their promises. They might want to, but so does Obama, presumably. It's just the structure of government that someone in the executive branch isn't going to be willing to use all of their political capital in a battle that weakens their own authority.
- jmccree 13y agoI suspect a third party would be far more likely to expect only one term and attempt to accomplish as much as possible without worry for re-election. Though there have been so few examples of "true" third party wins at high levels to know. The best example might be Jesse Ventura. As well, you might expect people who consistently run as a third party knowing no chance of winning to be less susceptible to the political machine than others.
- panarky 13y agoBefore the US invaded Iraq, when the President was talking about mushroom clouds [0] and the Secretary of State delivered a PowerPoint about bio-weapons to the United Nations [1], I gave our leaders the benefit of the doubt. Surely the military, the CIA, the NSA, the NRO, and the President must have secret information they cannot share with the public to justify the horrors of war. Turns out I was wrong. It was a pack of lies, half-truths and poorly-substantiated rumors to justify a predetermined agenda. After the 2007-2008 financial meltdown, when the President and the Secretary of the Treasury threatened the end of the world as we know it if the richest corporations aren't given direct cash infusions [2], I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Surely our elected officials would never directly transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to the richest of the rich unless the alternative was truly grave. Turns out I was wrong. It was a pack of lies, half-truths and poorly-substantiated rumors to transfer wealth from working people to the ownership class on an unprecedented scale. So when the President stands before us today and speaks for 45 minutes without saying anything of consequence, without providing any evidence that the threat is so dire, so imminent, so cataclysmic that we must relinquish our freedoms to preserve our freedoms, I can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. No more vague threats. No more fear. No more intimidation. No more secrecy. These are fatal to a political system that relies on an informed citizenry. [0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw9BJ_Kh7mE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw9BJ_Kh7mE [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?pa...
- jaibot 13y agoThe financial crisis was probably extremely dire.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoI don't see how it is substantially improved by instituting a tax backed financial insurance policy for gambling losses.
- 13y ago
- dobbsbob 13y agoSecret intel court can undo any changes too
- a3n 13y agoThey could all just lie. Congress isn't going to ask them anything, and they aren't going to tell.