Congress Is Trying To Expand The Patriot Act (rare.us) 174
An anonymous reader writes: The house is scheduled to vote in an hour or so on expanding provisions of the patriot act, allowing massive financial information sharing to include dozens of new offenses ("specified unlawful activities"), including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The house bill is H.R. 5606. My quick read is that this essentially lets FEDGOV expand massive semi-secret databases of financial transactions without a warrant while protecting banks from liability for helping them. In 5 years from 2002-2007, for example, with a smaller ability this led to 35,000 suspects but there were only 21 search warrants. Call your representative. Rare.us reports: "The proposed bill, H.R. 5606, expands Section 314 of the Patriot Act to cover non-terrorism or money laundering related investigations. Critics claim that the bill is a threat to the privacy of innocent Americans and is being rammed through Congress without debate. Section 314 encourages law enforcement to share information with financial institutions on money laundering and terrorism. It also encourages financial institutions to share information with each other." The report says the House Liberty Caucus, led by Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.), opposes the bill, claiming that Treasury Department regulations will compromise the privacy of Americans as it will all but mandate financial institutions to share information with the government. The caucus also opposes the bill because it is being brought to the floor under a suspension of the rules, and is not being considered under "regular order." The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) described HR 5606 as an attempt "to stop the flow of illicit dollars to criminals and terror organizations."
My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure Republicans just love having big government all up in their bank accounts, meanwhile us little people get fucked when the feds decide to seize everything we own and not give it back for years because they thought we were trying to launder money, or worse, look like we're trying to not look like we're laundering money, because we made a deposit just under whatever the limit is for reporting people's deposits are this week.
Someday, we'll end the war on drugs and end this bullshit, but we'll need a po
Re:My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, in this case, Republicans and Democrats wear the same stripes.
What they're doing is called 'overcriminalization' - an effect of people NOT breaking the current laws enough to continue making a profit incarcerating law-abiding people.
More at the (I know... I know..) Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/issues... [heritage.org]
http://www.heritage.org/issues/legal/overcriminalization
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats wear the same stripes.
FTFY
Strip-searched for a broken tail light (Score:5, Informative)
My local paper recently ran an article on these abuses.
“We the Prisoners”: The Demise of the Fourth Amendment [rcreader.com]
Re:My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Republicans just love having big government all up in their bank accounts, blah blah blah[sic].
The bIll's original sponsor is Maxine Waters, a Democrat. The bill currently has a total of 11 cosponsors, 6 of which are Democrats, and 5 of which are Republicans.
Both parties are out to screw you. Blaming one for all of your perceived evils is nonsensical.
Re: (Score:2)
Maxine Waters is an idiot.
When the 1994 Northridge quake hit the San Fernando Valley, she was there asking, "Why is all the money going to the Valley, and none to South Central?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:4, Insightful)
If you haven't already done so, move as much economic activity as possible underground ASAP.
Re: My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:5, Interesting)
While now is a dubious time to load up on bitcoin (markets are shakey, looks like a price drop is incoming), it may be a good idea to start factoring it into your portfolio for future semi-anonymous payments.
Regardless what people say, you can have some form of anonyminity with bitcoin. It will require the use of a tumbler, but if you don't mind spending $100 on EC2 instances you can create your own very easily or use a decentralized mixing service like coinjoin.
I'm not saying move your life savings to bitcoin, that would be beyond stupid. But having 5% in bitcoin holdings may prove to be helpful if a modified version of this bill is passed in the future
Re: My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you turn bitcoin back into cash or gold without a paper trail?
Re: (Score:2)
Buy British Pounds. It could use a little propping up...
Re: (Score:2)
How? Paper trail.
Once in any traded currency it's relatively easy to convert to another. But even there, paper trails are everywhere.
British pounds are certainly a better long term investment than euro.
Re: (Score:2)
Not good, just better than euro.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you turn bitcoin back into cash or gold without a paper trail?
Certain ATMs don't have KYC, but the better way to anonymously sell your bitcoin is with either localbitcoins https://localbitcoins.com/ [localbitcoins.com] or mycelium localtrader https://mycelium.com/lt/help.h... [mycelium.com] in person. This also makes it easy to quickly transfer bitcoin where you don't have to wait for confirmations - https://opendime.com/ [opendime.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Blockchain is transparent. Sooner or later they match your GUID to you. You are no longer hiding anything.
Re: My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:1)
Clearly you don't know the rules on foreign bank accounts ?
Re: My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived in Costa Rica and Panama for the past 30 years. I have no illusions that the US has its finger in EVERY pie.
You can't use CR and Panama as an example for the whole world. The USA has been most active [outside our borders] in central and south America, and in Panama and Costa Rica in particular — which is a well-known CIA hotbed. And we fucking invaded Panama.
Hell even Switzerland, Cyprus or the Caymans aren't sacred anymore.
They're not working for the USA, though. They're part of the new order, same as the old order; make it easier for the largest criminals to engage in criminal activity, while criminalizing even victimless activities to drive revenue and complicate the co
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they aren't hiding things, just using legal loopholes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just politicians. It's citizens. The hardworking citizens are sick and tired of having to pay more taxes so you can avoid paying yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait until those loopholes are closed so that people like you lose this lame excuse to violate the hell out of the spirit of the rules while looking the other way and whistling innocently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:5, Informative)
They do. Here is an example. [france24.com] This family is under suspicion - note SUSPICION - of money laundering. There has been no trial. Nothing has been proven. Their name simply turned up in the "Panama papers" a few months ago, and the US Treasury department must have already had their eye on them so they simply issued a statement. Due to that statement, all the credit card companies immediately dropped their services to businesses owned by this family.
The result is a large, successful shopping mall is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy because they owned both the mall and half the stores in it. The mall cannot collect payment from its customers. The stores can no longer accept credit cards. Oh they still accept cash, but I doubt stores the likes of Gucci, Prada and Luis Vuitton are going to walk to the mall and pay their rent in cash. It is a very high end shopping mall.
Since the mall almost went bankrupt, the US Treasury department struck a deal [treasury.gov] to allow the suspected family to "wind down" operations in an orderly fashion, so the mall now accepts credit cards again. So do pay attention to this. The UNITED STATES TREASURY is applying US law in Panama, telling Panamanian banks what to do, giving authorizations and citing US law, etc. And again I repeat this is merely "suspicion" on the part of the US government. There has been no trial, no sentencing. I'm not saying the Waked family are nice guys or 100% legit. What I AM saying is due process is out the window. Make no mistake, you cannot run and hide from US law even in another country.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying if the government hadn't issued a statement, none of the CC companies would have noticed or cared their names were on the papers list?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they were anonymous shell companies. Even the US cannot farm data that doesn't exist.
Shell companies as such are no issue, there are lots of legitimate reasons to have one. What doesn't exist - and never has and never will - is a legitimate reason to have a shell company that doesn't have your name attached to it. Every possible use of an anonymous shell company is to hide a crime. Some are relatively more minor (like tax dodging) some are terrible atrocities like slavery, selling weapons to terrori
Re:My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me (Score:4, Funny)
Well this is what happens when you elect a Republican congress to try to overturn Obamacare, you get all the duplicitous shit that comes along with it.. Your fault American people! Next time vote differently if you don't like having the American dream turned into a police state!
So you're saying they should have voted for Kang instead of Kodos?
Re: (Score:2)
Find your version of a Justin Amash and vote him in.
Death panels (Score:5, Insightful)
The insurance companies WERE the death panels. What do you think happens when you have a critical medical problem and your "care" is a visit to the ER instead of the appropriate regimen of drugs and/or therapy and/or surgery?
I'll tell you what happens: they bill you, you can't pay, they turn you over to debt collection, they destroy your financial reputation (assuming you have one), and you go on being sicker and sicker. And then you DIE.
Single payer is the sane answer for the average person. For rich people, no, it's not needed. Rich people, however, are a tiny minority. But they do comprise congress -- every seat. The average worth of a congressperson is seven figures. And we wonder why the poor people constantly get the shaft. Christ on a crutch. This nation is insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Single payer is the sane answer for the average person.
What is an "average person"? In 2014, 49% of Americans were covered by employer-provided health insurance [kff.org]. I understand that mileage varies, but I have had employer-provided insurance from four different employers over a period of almost 40 years, and the cost has been reasonable and the coverage excellent. I would really rather not have to give that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with faith in our current health insurance system is either a moron, or has n
Re: (Score:2)
The very time you need your health insurance the most, it's controlled by someone whose interests no longer align with yours.
Do you believe that the Federal government's interest is more aligned with your interests than are your employer's? I don't. And my experience here in the real world does not agree with your hypothetical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Single payer is the sane answer for the average person."
I already have single payer healthcare in the US.
I pay my insurance premiums.
I pay the deductible.
I pay the expenses not covered.
I have not incurred expenses in excess of my payments for now almost exactly 40 years. Will be 40 years in about 2 months.
I am the single payer. And I also, via taxes and excess premiums, pay others' healthcare, which I am mostly willing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
the shitbird douchenozzles who gave us Obamacare so they could collapse the healthcare system to give us single payer.
Oh, if only!
Sadly, that was not their intent at all.
Game (Score:4, Insightful)
What is FEDGOV? (Score:3)
What is FEDGOV? I mean, I think it doesn't take too many brain cells to assume it means the US Federal Government, but why is the submitter putting it in all caps as if it was some kind of acronym, or a secret code phrase? Apparently FEDGOV is something that maintains "semi-secret databases of financial transactions" (what does that mean)? This all sounds like conspiracy-theory gobbledigook to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Star chamber justice (Score:1)
(3)Court authority over assets.—
A court may issue a pretrial restraining order or take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank account or other property held by the defendant in the United States is available to satisfy a judgment under this section.
In other words, the feds will seize your bank account to make darn sure you are not able to afford an attorney to properly defend yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
I missed quoting section 4:
(4) Federal receiver.—
(A)In general.—
A court may appoint a Federal Receiver, in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, to collect, marshal, and take custody, control, and possession of all assets of the defendant, wherever located, to satisfy a civil judgment under this subsection, a forfeiture judgment under section 981 or 982, or a criminal sentence under section 1957 or subsection (a) of this section, including an order of restitution to any victim of a specified unlawful activity.
It looks like this will be used as a massive Federal expansion of the civil forfeiture laws..
Re:Star chamber justice (Score:4, Interesting)
"civil judgment under this subsection" Civil judgment means the case has been adjudicated in criminal or civil court proceedings before any penalties as imposed. This allows an individual to contest the charges in court. However, this new bill is part of the Patriot Act. The government has tried to use provisions in the Patriot Act twice to prosecute a defendant. In both cases the judge threw out the governments case on constitutional grounds. The government has never attempted to use the Patriot Act since then because of fear that the entire Patriot Act could be declared unconstitutional. There's a reason the government is fighting so hard to keep the residents of Gitmo out of the US court system. Congress can pass any law they want using in-house council to vet the legality of the proposed law which is mostly a rubber stamp process. To challenge the law requires someone to actually be charged under the law and then the law can be challenged in court. Then the process of vetting the law can be moved up the judicial ladder usually ending up in the Supreme Court when constitutional issues are involved. If the government passes an unconstitutional law but never uses it against anyone it becomes meaningless. If you want to complain about something that actually matters try wrapping your head around the powers that the IRS has had for a long time. The government can access the IRS databases anytime they want without a warrant of any type. The IRS also has the ability to seize assets, levy fines, and even put people in jail for tax fraud.
Will apple pullout if forced to unlock phones? (Score:1)
Will apple pullout if forced to unlock phones?
I can see under trump laws like that being passed.
More Hillary's style (Score:5, Insightful)
Will apple pullout if forced to unlock phones?
I can see under trump laws like that being passed.
Hillary is more of a "stay the course" candidate than Trump.
If you are betting the odds then Hillary is more likely to pass those types of laws than Trump.
Trump realizes that we have to fix things, and he wouldn't push businesses out of the US over something as ineffective as this.
Say what you want about Trump, but he knows business and isn't easily swayed by political spin.
And this won't be the main issue in the election anyway. Stability in ones lifestyle (meaning: the ability to make a living) is the big issue, which in practical terms means the economy and job availability.
That's what everyone's worried about: whether they'll have a job next year.
Other considerations are secondary to this one issue.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that you know what Trump will actually do if he wins the presidency, then I have a bridge to sell you. If you have been paying attention, apart from a few crazy ideas, he has not stated any detailed policies (or, if he has, he has backtracked on them).
Also, "Trump knows business"? You know that his investment performance is very little different from the average gains in Manhattan real estate, don
Re: (Score:2)
Trump doesn't even know what his platform is any more, he got so caught up in himself he doesn't even remember why people used to like him and his supporters can't remember either.
Re: (Score:2)
Cling to that meme. It assures him of victory.
If you ever figure him out, you might be able to defeat him. So tell Hillary he's an idiot, and encourage her to ignore him.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what everyone's worried about: whether they'll have a job next year.
Are you sure that's what people are worried about? People I know are wondering why we can't get a competent presidential candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
File this under the heading of 'lucky businessman is successful and evil'.
Right next to 'businessmen are cleverly exploiting the system'.
So which is it? Successful businessmen are smart or lucky? Or does your opinion change depending on the name of the businessman?
Are the Clintons in business? Are they successful at it? Because they are lucky, inherited, or, um, devious? Or just good people?
Congress is ever the opportunist (Score:3)
"Quick everyone's distracted with Pokemon Go, let's see what we can get away with!"
Re:Congress is ever the opportunist [Pokemon] (Score:5, Funny)
Meta-data, gotta catch 'em all!
What he said vs what he probably thinks (Score:2)
The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) described HR 5606 as an attempt "to stop the flow of illicit dollars to criminals and terror organizations."
The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC) probably thinks of HR 5606 as a huge step forward "in improving the ease and profitability of asset forfeiture, expanding its scope to include even more innocent citizens."
time travel question (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine you are a Jewish Gypsy living in 1932 Berlin, (two tickets to the camp)
What is the trigger event for you to make an move to another country ASAP ?
What are you taking with you and are willing to delay your move for ?
How do you chose where to go ?
if the USA has ceased to be "by the people,for the people" and now is run by the 1%ers (not the bikers !) what year is it ?
1929, 1933, 1936, 1939 ?
Bill Failed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
My legislative process is a little rusty, but I believe that it's not that the bill failed to pass, but that the motion to suspend the rules and fast track approval failed. That's why 2/3 was needed. It still got more than a majority that would be required to pass it if it took it's normal route. That should still be the troubling part.
It is a little refreshing to see a mixture of parties for both yeas and nays. I didn't think they were capable of voting for something and it not being a partisan issue.
Failed to pass (Score:3)
umm, wait (Score:2)
Isn't the House made up of the same bunch who think the government is incompetent, can't be trusted, and is dangerous? And they are all fired to give it more power? WTF?
WAKE UP! The support was bi-partisan (Score:2, Insightful)
"establishment" Republicans and Democrats agreeing on something is always bad.
People who hate this garbage have a VERY easy solution within grasp. Slap down all the politicians in DC with a real frightening act. Scare the crap out of them all, no matter how entrenched, in both parties.
How?
Support House Speaker Paul Ryan's opponent, Paul Nehlen, in the Wisconsin congressional primary. They guy is not a politician and is way out-gunned on the cash front as every corrupt interest in DC will stuff cash into Spe
So write your congressperson (Score:2)
Its an election year, write them a letter and tell them you won't vote for them.
WOAH! Wrong way dude! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Patriot act should be getting repealed, not expanded.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, it was never supposed to be permanent.
The Governmafia (Score:2)
Cripes, when the Italian mafia, Irish mob, et al. were running extortion rackets, they'd at least leave you the hell alone if you paid up the extortion fees. The criminal cartel in Washington DC shakes you down for a huge chunk of your earnings under threat of violence and STILL wants to make your life miserable.
I've been regularly calling, e-mailing and sending snail mail to my reps and Senators for the past friggin MONTH trying to stop those scumbags from undermining my Right to firearms ownership. Now
Of course they are (Score:2)
This move was completely expected. Congress is in favor of the maximum amount of spying that they can get away with.
Keep it up, assholes, keep it up (Score:2)
Re:more gifts from the party of small government.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The House Liberty Caucus, led by Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.), has come out in opposition to the bill ..."
"Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is the main co-sponsor of the legislation."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The bill's sponsor, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC)..."
It's a bipartisan thing. You should be happy!
Re: (Score:1)
"Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is the main co-sponsor of the legislation."
That's depressing, considering her fairly-progressive stance on many social issues. Again, you just can't seem to rely on anyone's history --with the exception of Bernie... It appears he's reaching some compromise to endorse Hillary. So sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's completely in line with her 'fairly-progressive stance on many social issues'. She has never met a government power she doesn't like, just like all 'progressives'.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Not to mention like most 'conservatives'.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Obama count as a liberal? Didn't he stretch the presidential powers to the best of his ability?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Obama count as a liberal?
No. Obama is a left-leaning centrist.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Obama count as a liberal?
Not really... sorry, no, I meant not at all. He RAN as a liberal, but he didn't rule as one. Center-right would be a more apt description of his actual policies. He didn't do single-payer health-care or even provide a public-option. He didn't submit a single bill to defend gay or trans rights and the only significant thing he did in this regard was to push for an education department policy about trans bathroom access, which came way too late. He hasn't pardoned Snowden. He hasn't rolled back the Patriot a
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Obama count as a liberal?
Not really... sorry, no, I meant not at all. He RAN as a liberal, but he didn't rule as one. Center-right would be a more apt description of his actual policies. He didn't do single-payer health-care or even provide a public-option. He didn't submit a single bill to defend gay or trans rights and the only significant thing he did in this regard was to push for an education department policy about trans bathroom access, which came way too late. He hasn't pardoned Snowden. He hasn't rolled back the Patriot act. He didn't end either war. He didn't reduce the military spending. He didn't do anything to oppose the militarization of the police. He didn't speak out against atrociously oppressive laws by republican state legislatures. He didn't do anything concrete on climate change and the little he did came too late. He basically didn't change anything and offered no real hope. He didn't reduce US support for Israel or give any kind of balanced response to the events in the region. He was the perfect DINO.
Obama a centrist? Don't make me laugh! As for pardoning Snowden, a President can't pardon someone who hasn't been charged.
Didn't he stretch the presidential powers to the best of his ability?
Again - not supported by the facts. He issued the lowest number of executive orders of any president in the past 70 years. His immigration policies didn't do anything that hasn't been done by every president since Reagan. His last supreme court nomination is a noted centrist whom republicans used to support. He didn't declare any wars and only engaged in one major military action - which had UN approval and involvement. He also didn't reduce them though. He didn't reclassify marijuana, end private prisons (at least federally), or act against mandatory minimum sentences. He didn't try to repeal PATRIOT and he didn't actively oppose NSA spying (which started well before him).
Truth be told. Obama's administration is basically a no-score win.
Look at the content of those executive orders and not just straight numbers. Declaring that federal workers will get both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day off (yes, that was an executive order!) isn't on the same level as granting amnesty to 6 million illegal immigrants. Obama has shown his true colors. When he doesn't get his way through proper channels, he takes his ball and goes home -
Re: (Score:2)
>Obama a centrist? Don't make me laugh!
I cited facts. You just denied it without a single shred of supporting evidence. Typical rightwinger seeing what he wants to see.
>As for pardoning Snowden, a President can't pardon someone who hasn't been charged.
False. Presidents have frequently pardoned people who haven't been charged. Most famously - Ford pardoned Nixon who had not been charged with any crime.
> isn't on the same level as granting amnesty to 6 million illegal immigrants
As I pointed out and y
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that Obama has actually deported more immigrants than any president - ever (bet you didn't know that) and that net Mexican immigration under Obama is NEGATIVE - more people have left the US for Mexico than has entered the US from Mexico during Obama's administration.
Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
If you want to argue that immigration policy is too lenient - then you can have that debate, we may not agree but there is room to debate. What you do NOT get to do is pretend Obama has been more lenient than any president since the current immigration act was signed into law by Reagan since that is absolutely not true. Fox news has been lying to you.
The immigration act may have been signed into law by Reagan, but we're talking about Obama's executive order granting amnesty to any who illegally entered the US as children plus their immediate families. The same executive order half the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional [cnn.com].
I would l
Re: (Score:2)
>Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
I never said or suggested that the one caused the other - they just happened to happen at the the same time. Both statements however are true. Obama has just recently surpassed Eisenhower's deportation record - which was the previous highest.
>but we're talking about Obama's exe
Re: (Score:2)
Obama and Hillary are both very Centrist or Right-leaning. If they were willing to lie and say they thought fetal life Trumped a mothers choice (like the Republican candidates) they could pick some single issue voters, like my Mother. If they could grow a Penis or lighten their skin, the GOP would be in shambles.
To be fair, many of the Republican candidates don't think Women should make any choices. I
Re: (Score:2)
Obama and Hillary are both very Centrist or Right-leaning. If they were willing to lie and say they thought fetal life Trumped a mothers choice (like the Republican candidates) they could pick some single issue voters, like my Mother. If they could grow a Penis or lighten their skin, the GOP would be in shambles.
I can't tell if you were serious or just trolling. The vast majority of Republicans don't care about race, ethnicity, or sex (yes, we do care about gender to an extent) when it comes to determining who best qualifies. Also, Obama seems to be a Socialist in Democrat's clothing; his agenda certainly doesn't follow the Right's. IMO, Hillary would be even more extreme, but I'm leery of Trump as President.
To be fair, many of the Republican candidates don't think Women should make any choices. I myself think abortion is terrible, but I realize that the Democratic policies will result in fewer abortions due to social changes.
You truly don't understand Republicans, instead you attack the caricatures painted by the Left. The vast maj
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't even come close to closing Guantanamo...
I'm talking about drone strikes, individual tracking via data mining, all the new stuff that was started post-911 - he did bring the ground troops home, but seems to have replaced them with all the new gadgets of force projection - I'd call that expanding powers, rather than abusing the traditional ones.
Re: (Score:2)
>He didn't even come close to closing Guantanamo..
True, but to be fair that wasn't for lack of trying. That one is on congress.
>I'm talking about drone strikes, individual tracking via data mining, all the new stuff that was started post-911 - he did bring the ground troops home, but seems to have replaced them with all the new gadgets of force projection - I'd call that expanding powers, rather than abusing the traditional ones.
Everyone of those things were started by Bush (except bringing the groun
Re: (Score:2)
Oh - and those are all things liberals are just as furious about as you are - they sure as hell aren't liberal or progressive policies, in fact they are exactly why I called him centre-right.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting it off as "those things were started by Bush" is naive, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] 1995 sounds like the Clinton years to me, and for the aircraft to have been put into service in 1995, it had to have serious development underway back under Reagan.
I'm no Repblican, I hate 'em all and think the system is fundamentally broken - or at least could be significantly improved with a lottery style selection of decision makers, and that in itself is a sad statement of our state of affairs.
Like registe
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the system is broken - but I would favour a system of ranked selection voting. So voting for a third-party candidate doesn't have to equal voting for the guy you LEAST want in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Republican congresspersons are not at all conservative. Even most of those claiming to be.
No difference in outcomes (Score:3, Insightful)
She has never met a government power she doesn't like, just like all 'progressives'.
It's adorable you think conservatives aren't the same way. The only real difference between them is how they prefer to fund their government expansions and which social programs they favor. Liberals prefer taxes and conservatives prefer to borrow the money. Neither one of them has the slightest real interest in reducing government in general. There hasn't been a single instance where the overall size and reach of the government has been reduced outside of draw downs from major wars in the last 150 years
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if just one of the examples you gave wasn't supported by 'progressives'.
Re: (Score:2)
Election year, time to: a) Get tough on crime, b) Get sponsorship from parties that benefit from "tough on crime legislation", or c) Court the fringe vote that cares about civil liberties.
Some politicians will go for c, but a+b will probably carry the final vote.
Re: Thanks Republitards (Score:1)
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is the main co-sponsor of the legislation."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For what you mean to ask, the answer is, a Republican, because both parties want to fuck you like Douchey McDesktopdouche fucked Linux with SystemD.
Your question is terrible, though. The dude you're after is also a co-sponsor. That's how co-sponsors work. That's how co- works. There's not a Lord High Sponsor standing over the co-sponsors; the co-sponsors are all of them equally responsible and terrible douchenozzles.
Re: (Score:1)
That is what the courts are for, this is exactly the place that the checks and balances mechanism, the judicial review of legislation, was designed to handle. Legislators will always write bad laws, and the police will always be overzealous in their enforcement of laws. The thing to watch out for are special categories that fall outside of judicial review, things like special hearings for unlawful combatants or national security letters that include gag orders.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly the federal courts are overrun by liberal judges, and happily decide what social policy they would prefer to turn into law.
Not that truly Conservative judges would do that much better, until there is a genuine effort in Congress to enforce the Constitution and restore the rule of law. I'm not hopeful. This will take time, a process not unlike eradicating black mold.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't referring to SCOTUS.
Lots of benches.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's right, it did not pass, but have you seen HR5607, which did pass?
www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5607/text [congress.gov]
Particularly:
SEC. 5. Improving anti-terror finance monitoring of funds transfers.
SEC. 6. Sense of Congress
SEC. 7. Unified electronic stream.
SEC. 8. Adding the Secretary of the Treasury to the National Security Council
Not nearly as bad, but you can clearly see the direction they (congress) are intending to go. It will be the same as HR 5606, but it will, as is their usual M.O.,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And remember next time you are about to call a Trump supporter an idiot, this is the sort of crap that Hillary has absolutely no problem with.
Sorry, but Trump supporters are idiots, regardless of whatever else is true. The man is unfit to be President.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry, but Hillary supporters are idiots, regardless of whatever else is true. The woman is unfit to be President.
Re: (Score:2)
"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it"
I don't actually agree with this, but it's virtually impossible to distinguish between those who crave power for their own purposes and those who would seek a position of power to achieve good things.
It's always too late when you find it's the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. Vote them out. Repeatedly. Until they do what we want.
Oh, wait...