65 House Democrats vote to extend Trump administrations NSA spying capabilities

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Padawanbater2, Jan 12, 2018.

  1.  
    Padawanbater2

    Padawanbater2 Well-Known Member

    WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted on Thursday to extend the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program for six years with minimal changes, rejecting a push by a bipartisan group of lawmakers to impose significant privacy limits when it sweeps up Americans’ emails and other personal communications.


    NYTimes

    #McResistance
     
  2.  
    Unclebaldrick

    Unclebaldrick Well-Known Member

    In before duct-tape.

    Join the Justice Debs.
     
  3.  
    Jimdamick

    Jimdamick Well-Known Member

    Welcome to the future.
     
    MarWan likes this.
  4.  
    SneekyNinja

    SneekyNinja Well-Known Member

    65 House Justice Democrats...

    Don't exist!

    [​IMG]
     
    srh88 and dagwood45431 like this.
  5.  
    Padawanbater2

    Padawanbater2 Well-Known Member

    So the overall political philosophy you support just gave Trump the continued authority to spy on American citizens without a warrant. Why would you support that, especially after having had multiple meltdowns over the actions of his administration since he took office? Answer: because you're a partisan hack. You support everything the Democratic party does, even when they support Trump..
     
  6.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    i was a big feingold supporter and so was bernie but he couldn't even get as many votes as hillary did.
     
    srh88, dagwood45431 and frizfrazjaz like this.
  7.  
    Fogdog

    Fogdog Well-Known Member

    119 Democrats voted against the measure to 65 for and @Padawanbater2 talks as if the entire Democratic Party is guilty.

    45 Republicans voted against the measure to 191 for and @Padawanbater2 talks as if the entire Democratic Party is guilty.

    Does anybody see bias in this?

    Nah, can't be.
     
  8.  
    Padawanbater2

    Padawanbater2 Well-Known Member

    If 26 Democrats voted against Trump, the program would have died

    You support those 26 Democrats who support Trump

    You support Trump
     
  9.  
    SneekyNinja

    SneekyNinja Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
    srh88, UncleBuck and dagwood45431 like this.
  10.  
    Grandpapy

    Grandpapy Well-Known Member

    I believe the 65/45 ratio is the result of IBM/Tech stockholders.
    Big things are happening and we seem to follow the winners.
    How your credit report?
    2016.11.29 - China 1_0.JPG
     
    srh88 likes this.
  11.  
    Fogdog

    Fogdog Well-Known Member

    Well, that was predictable.

    Pad's post is a perfect example of why cynicism is a dead end belief system and how belief in false assumptions causes the cynic to .become lazy in his approach to a problem.

    For example, his belief that the Democratic party is a monolith with everybody acting according to the demands of the 1%. This belief is demonstrated false by the simple fact that 2/3 of Democratic caucus members in the House of Reps voted against that act. Pad's simple minded view is that the act is wrong, therefore anybody who voted for it is wrong and everybody associated with them are tarred by their vote. His conclusion is because 1/3 of Democrats in the House voted for the bill, ALL Democrats therefore agree with them.

    None of the Democratic delegation from my state, Oregon, voted for have expressed support for the bill. Peter Defazio, my congressional delegate, whom I voted for, voted nay on the measure. Senator Ron Wyden,, whom I voted for, is on record of saying he opposes and will filibuster this bill in a bipartisan effort to stop it. I supported Wydien with my vote. I've done what Pad can't do, which is reach out to Wyden's office to lend my support. As a resident of Oregon I voiced my support to Wyden for his efforts and showed tangible support by donating to his political campaigns.

    Pad would simply drown in cynicism and false belief. He'd castigates people like me, who support Democratic leaders who quite rightly don't see the fight as being over and are preparing to stop it in the Senate. The only answer is effective opposition, which Wyden is able to mount because he's a senior member of the Democratic caucus and holds seats on important committees. He's sworn to oppose FISA reauthorization and can work both with the Democratic caucus as well as with Republicans who also oppose this bill.. If he loses the fight it won't be because he sold out, it will be because Republicans almost universally are for the reauthoriization of FISA and there are a few Democratic Party Senators from conservative states who side with them We are in this situation where right wingers call the shots because cynics like Pad didn't show up to vote. They are the problem, not the Democratic Party's delegation from Oregon.

    Because Justice Democrats as well as the Independent Bernie Sanders have no meaningful presence in the House or the Senate, effective opposition is something they simply can't mount on their own. What Bernie will do is cleave to the Democratic Party as his vehicle of opposition to FISA.

    Unlike Bernie, Pad, in his cynicism, writes off the very people who can stop the bill in the mistaken belief that only those who are pure and true to a callow faux-progressive ignorant drunk driving white male sexist homophobic Californian's ideology are the only people worth supporting. Of course, we all know that Pad doesn't support social justice or equality and in this way is more like a Trump supporter than anything else but saying so would stray from the main point of this reply - so I won't go into that in this post.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  12.  
    SneekyNinja

    SneekyNinja Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
    srh88 likes this.

Share This Page