*Best Angry Face*

[dudelovenext]

I always thought Obama was an up and up guy. Not my first choice to be president, but still, a stand up guy.

Unless this is some weird sneaky "trying to appeal to those that won't vote for me", THIS is fucking BULLSHIT.

Bleh. Can't believe he'd vote to give the Telco's immunity...

Comments

[fearless-son.livejournal.com]

Telcos?

[dudelovenext.livejournal.com]

Telecommunication companies.

It's a long story, but basically the government obtained warrantless wiretaps of citizens. The Telcos (such as Comcast, AT&T) gave the information with no warrants presented.

You can do a search (it's been going on for a while), but here's the Slashdot article (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/09/2027248).

[tak178.livejournal.com]

Nope.

Government wiretaps of non-citizens, or foreign nationals who have ties to terrorist organizations. BIG caveat. The programme was reviewed every 3 months to see that it met conditions of the original authorization.

Obama is another politician trying to get votes, and he is trying to convince moderates and conservatives that he's not that much of a socialist. If he didn't vote for this, it would have been political suicide. You'll see more of this from him in the months to come, as he moves more to the centre.

~Dave

...

[elsmd.livejournal.com]

Your mistake was thinking that a politician was an up-and-up guy. Such a thing exists, but you'll never see one get as close to the White House as Obama is, currently.

The bill is very obviously a piece of garbage. Warrentless wiretapping is unethical whether it's performed on citizens or not. The argument that they are foreign nationals with ties to terrorist organizations ignores the key word, "suspected". When they spy on someone they suspect has terrorist ties and then discover they were wrong, it's right away an invasion of privacy. If there is enough certainty that someone has terrorist ties that they would resort to warrantless wiretapping, then it shouldn't be so hard to argue a case in favor of obtaining a warrant. This approach only amounts to laziness. The program is reviewed internally, which is downright meaningless protocol. Of course they won't burn their own tails.

This is why neither Democrats nor Republicans deserve to have office in DC.

Re: ...

[msondo.livejournal.com]

Your mistake was thinking that a politician was an up-and-up guy. Such a thing exists, but you'll never see one get as close to the White House as Obama is, currently.

I completely agree with this.

It's silly to think any mainstream politician is not evil in some way. Obama appears to be the lesser of the two evils, however. I actually really agree with his ideas on the economy so I'll vote for him on that.

...

[elsmd.livejournal.com]

There are a lot more than two evils to choose from. There's even a couple that aren't that evil. Limiting yourself to two candidates that you disapprove of only dooms you to allowing a president that you disapprove of.

Re: ...

[msondo.livejournal.com]

How would it be possible to choose a non-Republicrat?

...

[elsmd.livejournal.com]

There are scores of reasonable third party candidates. They definitely don't get as much coverage as Republicans or Democrats, but if you're proactive enough to care about who you're actually voting for, the info isn't terribly difficult to find.

Re: ...

[msondo.livejournal.com]

There are definitely better candidates than the two front-runners. But how do you get a non-Republican/Democrat into a high office such as the White House? The system is designed to only allow two parties a shot at winning an election (or getting selected by a judge.)

...

[elsmd.livejournal.com]

I didn't say that the person would win because you vote for them. Just that you wouldn't be a contributing factor to someone you dislike gaining office. While the system is definitely biased in favor of two dominant parties, it's partly sustained by those who vote by the "lesser of two evils" mentality.

[kapslocked.livejournal.com]

Note that the bill didn't have enough votes against it that it could be blocked, so I don't think there would've been a difference if Obama had voted against it. Except for that.

I'm come to accept that most politicians are pragmatists.

[fearless-son.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Ideology is something that must often be made secondary in politics as a matter of pragmatism. Sometimes you have to court the opposition in one area in order to maintain the support you need in another area. The system is built on this kind of compromise, and those who play the political game must know where to relent and where to hold ground. Voters should take the same approach. No candidate will ever be perfect. Sure, one candidate may hold values that most closely match your own, but that alone does not make them a good president. The fact is that this is a very large and very diverse country, and a candidate that closely matches one person's values is unlikely to match many other people's values. This is a "winner take all" system, and no matter who gets voted in someone is going to be chafing under them. The best thing is to vote for a candidate whom one feels will best take into account and represent as broad a set of interests as possible. Because if a candidate does not do that, then the people who do not agree with that candidate will be enough that they can check the candidate's power and stop measures from getting through. Which means that the best way to progress is ironically the path of most moderation.