They'd get some tens of thousands of votes from 4chan, that's for sure.
Until you realise most of them can't vote from being underage and/or foreigners.
Oh nevermind.
You're right. And it'll definitely have to be looked into (I haven't looked into it yet to be honest). The main issue I have with the NSA debacle isn't the act, which you could argue is mainstream, it's the procedures. It should require a warrant to even access someone's data. It should never be monitored of stored without suspicion, and it should be left to a court warrant in plain view not in a secret court.
Going with that, I'll have to research our procedures up here.
We definitely need to support someone who actually has a track record for this. We can't vote someone again who "just promises this and speaks well".
Obama has done such a 180 degree that you almost think it was all for show so he gets elected, and it will be difficult to believe anyone who just promises to free us from the surveillance state, if they don't have a strong background of supporting civil liberties and fighting against the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. Wyden, Udall and Paul I'd say qualify. There may be others, too, but probably not too many.
But even if they stand no chance of winning, we need to stop voting for the "lesser evil". It has solved nothing so far. The only way to change things is to vote for people you'd really want to become president, not for people who you'd rather win instead of the other guy.
We definitely need to support someone who actually has a track record for this.
Ahem. Russ Feingold is best known for his collaboration with John McCain on campaign finance reform, but was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time (joined by a few others the second time). Voted against the Iraq war. One of 3 Democrats to vote against Geithner as Treasury secretary. Fought pork, returned his raises to the government. Voted against dismissal of impeachment charges for Clinton, brought a resolution to censure George W. Bush for illegal wiretapping. After losing his seat to a Tea Partier, he formed a PAC, Progressives United, which has opposed Citizens United, Wall Street and SOPA, and calls out the Democrats when their spine softens, but was just shipped off to an African ambassadorship.
I don't think a President Wyden would try to repeal ACA or really do too much meddling; he'd be busy for 4 years downsizing the defense-intelligence-industrial complex, which would provide more than enough savings to defer dealing with the other issues for a while.
You do not want bipartisan. That just means the same old same old, simply pretending to be different. If Obama can't or wont repair the damage of the Bush administration, well, he seems hell bent on out Bushing Bush, why turn to their ilk again? Have Americans not been bitten enough? I know the rest of us are tired of suffering at the hands of both American parties. Remember the world wide joy at the election of Obama? Yep, we are all disappointed.
You need a NEW party. A party that relies on and represents humanity. If The US wants to regain its status as leader of the free world, first it need to embrace that world and all human beings as equals. Get that right and the rest should follow.
IANAA (I am not an American) But I agree neo liberalism is what got us into this mess.
However, I think we're diverging on how to tackle fixing it. I mentioned bipartisan because the OP said Wyden/Paul. This would also fragment the center, which would allow the left to take more of a reign.
Where I'm from, the conservatives have a majority due to left vote splitting amongst the liberals, green, and new democrats. But with such right wing fragmentation happening in the states, what really needs to happen is not a fragmentation of the left, but one of the middle IMO.
Personally, I think this would accomplish the goal, as if you had a bipartisan party with good policies, you would then have a very confused and hypocritical left (Democrats) who would then start having to actually pander to its base instead of the imagined center.
Yes, but in the Senate (and to some extent, House), you'd want existing black-sheep incumbents, particularly those in super-safe seats (like Wyden) to form a new congressional party.
There's not much hope of a third party in Presidential politics, but congress and state level could work out pretty well, with funding.
According to Paul's office, the senator "didn’t think it went as far as it should" and wasn't comfortable signing the letter when his changes weren't adopted.
Comments
I suppose Wyden/Paul 2016 isn't really feasible, but it would be a good way to solve issues of governmental overreach.
They'd get some tens of thousands of votes from 4chan, that's for sure. Until you realise most of them can't vote from being underage and/or foreigners. Oh nevermind.
I was a little upset at your post, until I realized I was pissed AND from Canada...
So are any Americans actually upset about this, or do us foreigners care more about your country than you guys do?
Trust me, plenty of us are pissed while still being from the United States - not that the media will ever tell you that.
Being in Canada, too, I think people here are just as apathetic as those in the US over things like this, maybe even more so.
I don't trust CSEC to not be spying on me any more than I'd trust NSA.
You're right. And it'll definitely have to be looked into (I haven't looked into it yet to be honest). The main issue I have with the NSA debacle isn't the act, which you could argue is mainstream, it's the procedures. It should require a warrant to even access someone's data. It should never be monitored of stored without suspicion, and it should be left to a court warrant in plain view not in a secret court.
Going with that, I'll have to research our procedures up here.
We definitely need to support someone who actually has a track record for this. We can't vote someone again who "just promises this and speaks well".
Obama has done such a 180 degree that you almost think it was all for show so he gets elected, and it will be difficult to believe anyone who just promises to free us from the surveillance state, if they don't have a strong background of supporting civil liberties and fighting against the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. Wyden, Udall and Paul I'd say qualify. There may be others, too, but probably not too many.
But even if they stand no chance of winning, we need to stop voting for the "lesser evil". It has solved nothing so far. The only way to change things is to vote for people you'd really want to become president, not for people who you'd rather win instead of the other guy.
Ahem. Russ Feingold is best known for his collaboration with John McCain on campaign finance reform, but was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time (joined by a few others the second time). Voted against the Iraq war. One of 3 Democrats to vote against Geithner as Treasury secretary. Fought pork, returned his raises to the government. Voted against dismissal of impeachment charges for Clinton, brought a resolution to censure George W. Bush for illegal wiretapping. After losing his seat to a Tea Partier, he formed a PAC, Progressives United, which has opposed Citizens United, Wall Street and SOPA, and calls out the Democrats when their spine softens, but was just shipped off to an African ambassadorship.
Etc. I love this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold
Watching him argue against the Patriot Act in 2001 on C-SPAN is pretty interesting: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/596265765
Essentially every bad thing he hypothesized has come to pass.
I believe in public education and health care.
I don't think a President Wyden would try to repeal ACA or really do too much meddling; he'd be busy for 4 years downsizing the defense-intelligence-industrial complex, which would provide more than enough savings to defer dealing with the other issues for a while.
So do I, but it would be nice to do it right.
I believe in public education
Based on what evidence?
Does public need to mean federal?
I'd love to see people try get this going. Call it, the bipartisan party!
You do not want bipartisan. That just means the same old same old, simply pretending to be different. If Obama can't or wont repair the damage of the Bush administration, well, he seems hell bent on out Bushing Bush, why turn to their ilk again? Have Americans not been bitten enough? I know the rest of us are tired of suffering at the hands of both American parties. Remember the world wide joy at the election of Obama? Yep, we are all disappointed.
You need a NEW party. A party that relies on and represents humanity. If The US wants to regain its status as leader of the free world, first it need to embrace that world and all human beings as equals. Get that right and the rest should follow.
IANAA (I am not an American) But I agree neo liberalism is what got us into this mess.
However, I think we're diverging on how to tackle fixing it. I mentioned bipartisan because the OP said Wyden/Paul. This would also fragment the center, which would allow the left to take more of a reign.
Where I'm from, the conservatives have a majority due to left vote splitting amongst the liberals, green, and new democrats. But with such right wing fragmentation happening in the states, what really needs to happen is not a fragmentation of the left, but one of the middle IMO.
Personally, I think this would accomplish the goal, as if you had a bipartisan party with good policies, you would then have a very confused and hypocritical left (Democrats) who would then start having to actually pander to its base instead of the imagined center.
Yes, but in the Senate (and to some extent, House), you'd want existing black-sheep incumbents, particularly those in super-safe seats (like Wyden) to form a new congressional party.
There's not much hope of a third party in Presidential politics, but congress and state level could work out pretty well, with funding.
It's worth mentioning that Rand Paul isn't a member of Wyden's bipartisan group of 26 senators.
According to Paul's office, the senator "didn’t think it went as far as it should" and wasn't comfortable signing the letter when his changes weren't adopted.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/28/_26_senators_vs...