it isn't the legalities...it's the betrayal that's pissing people off

[backwoodsbob]

We can argue the legalities of FISA or secret courts or whatever until doomsday but that isn't what's pissing people off...it's the betrayal of all the things we voted for in 2008

We voted for *the most transparent presidency in history*...ROFL
we all know how that worked out.

We voted for the guy who mocked Hillary Clinton in debates for calling for an insurance mandate...and then enacted one

We voted for the guy who wanted more transparency in government...who is negotiating a trade agreement behind closed doors who refuses to let even elected reps become involved

We voted for the guy who promised that the most vulnerable amongst us would be taken care of....who is now pushing for chained CPI and isn't fighting lowered food stamps while allowing the richest amongst us to get ever richer

We voted for the guy who said he would never sign a health care reform bill without *a robust public option* and then he threw that under the bus without a fight.


This NSA and spying stuff is just the tipping point that made a lot of us say WTF happened to the guy we were working for in 2008?

What happened to hope and change?What happened to government of the people?

The betrayal is what has us so pissed off.

FLAME AWAY

[Th1onein]

1. No flames here. I'm pissed, too.

We really have to have a grass roots effort to pick our own candidates instead of letting the media pick them for us.

I'm for Dean.

[backwoodsbob]

68. I could live with Dean

I want warren but a Dean/Warren ticket works for me

[nradisic]

91. Dean/Warren would be the bomb!

what a ticket!

[carolinayellowdog]

102. love both of them but geographic balance issues would prevent it

IMO a Vermont/Massachusetts ticket just isn't gonna happen; the party would want at least one swing state to be influenced-- not think I can think of any swing state Dem who looks as good as either

[backwoodsbob]

4. if what is what he needs?

what?to become emperor?
I don't think so

[Phlem]

7. So

if the president jumps off a cliff, we should support him and jump too?

-p

[Hissyspit]

63. Moooommm...!

[Phlem]

79. ;0)

-p

[Marr]

10. Oh, puke. /nt

[stillwaiting]

17. Authoritarianism sucks. I hope that with each passing day more and more people can disabuse

themselves from thinking under those terms.

Blind trust and faith in our politicians at this time in our nation's history is beyond my comprehension.

I wonder where we will have to end up as a country before a majority of our citizens are independent thinkers and not partisans.

[backwoodsbob]

20. yeah someone who abandoned

EVERY SINGLE THING he said he would work for.

Sorry but the rah rah team team shit aint cutting it.
He betrayed us and I won't go blindly into another election like I did in 2008

[kardonb]

69. betrayed

He betrayed you ? NOT ! He kept you safe for the last 5 years ! Get out of cloud coocooland and live here , in real time .

[snappyturtle]

94. Safe? From foreign enemies....maybe.....from domestically applied

attack on civil liberties, Soc. Sec., SNAP.....those things that keep me personally 'safe'....not so much.

[stillwaiting]

21. Obama and his Administration have done (and not done) enough to warrant the criticism

that he receives around here from many on certain issues. There are many things that have happened (and not happened) that make any labeling of that criticism "knee-jerk" quite unfitting.

Enabling many of Obama's (and his Administration's) actions guarantees we go even further to the right in the Democratic Party. At some point we, as a group, are going to have to unite and stand up against them (while still supporting liberal/progressive Democrats for office). Failure to do this will ensure the continued erosion of the middle class, working class, and the poor's economic standing.

Obama's a grown up. He can handle the criticism, and he even asked for us to give him our critical opinions. I have no idea why so many liberal and progressive viewpoints continue to get shouted down around here. Our nation will continue to deteriorate because of it.

We'll have to make him do the things we supposedly want him to do or he won't do them, and we'll continue to get horribly conservative choices for many of the positions and policies that Obama actually does have control over.

[duffyduff]

110. His ruinous education policies which undermine the very foundation of democracy,

public education, and his inaction on the economy are enough to warrant criticism and condemnation.

[Fuddnik]

22. Now, that's funny.

Just because someone got snookered, they can't admit it?

I still curse the day I went to work for John Kerry. In hindsight it would have been better going down in flames working for my friend Dennis Kucinich. But, I went the route of going with the most electable.

[Coccydynia]

35. Thank you!

I remember people being trashed on DU for suggesting he would suck as SoS.

[JDPriestly]

70. I don't think that is what people said.

I think people said we need Kerry more in the Senate.

We shall see whether Markey assumes his seat. It's a crucial seat.

[Coccydynia]

71. I'm not sure he was all that great in the Senate.

But my standards are Bernie Sanders high.

[Yo_Mama]

30. Because we elected a PRESIDENT of a democratic republic

rather than the Supreme Leader of a fascist totalitarian state?

Because when people elected a man who had taught constitutional law, they were thinking "He gets it - he'll change things?"

Because said constitutional law professor and senator had made multiple statements decrying the surveillance under the Bush administration, so it was reasonable in the extreme for voters to believe that they were indeed voting for more moderation on just this issue?

Because instead what the voters got was an attack on press freedoms that was unprecedented?

Because if one were to accept the logic of your statement, any time we elected a president we would be electing a potential dictator?

Because for all of my lifetime, Republicans have been the ones who don't seem to consider preserving constitutional liberties for the poor and vulnerable important, and therefore it is even more essential that the Democrats do?

What I object to the most is that you seem to equate support for a president with support for EVERY SINGLE POLICY of that president. That's not the stuff of democracy.

President Obama asked us to hold his feet to the fire and to push on some issues. Perhaps he doesn't like hearing about this one, but the country will be stronger for it. His children will be better off for it, as will ours.

[Coccydynia]

37. Are you sure he wasn't elected Supreme Leader?

[backwoodsbob]

39. I wish I could rec a reply

you just hit the grand slam

[NoOneMan]

32. I totally agree

The job of the President is to make shit sandwiches taste good. Obama is extraordinary at doing this (just see how many people now approve of things they didn't like invasions and wiretapping).

Obama is one of the best shit sandwich salesmen the country has ever seen. The American people picked a good one.

But of course, for the sentient beings, this isn't about Obama. These issues are right or wrong, no matter what shit seller is doing the selling. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of sentient creatures left on this earth

[Coccydynia]

38. Sentient beings who are also intelligent

Understand it is about both. Sorry.

[TransitJohn]

33. Unfuckingbelievable

I am sorely tempted to violate TOS and chew you out.

[Coccydynia]

34. Probably because Candidate Obama

Himself said you can't trash civil liberties for security.

[quakerboy]

40. No, We didn't.

We elected him to improve the country. Being president was just the mechanism we hoped would give him the power to enact the changes.

And he doesn't need this to do his job.

Doubly moot nonpoints

[HooptieWagon]

3. The "legalities" are also troubling...

since a similar secret process was used to declare Bush's torture programs "legal".

If common words are re-defined to alternate meanings, and used to justify what reasonable people would view as unconstitutional actions...then there's a serious problem.

[Yo_Mama]

31. THAT is so very true

A "warrant" that is issued to collect everyone's information is a perversion of the term.

[HooptieWagon]

78. Exactly. A warrant that covers every single person in the US...

...simply defies legal principles any reasonable jurist/scholar/ lawyer would apply.

[Skidmore]

82. All the jumping up and down will not correct this systemic

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:23 AM - Edit history (1)

legal mechanism until either Congress repeals or amends the Patriot Act and the FISA provisions or SCOTUS rules this unconstitutional. A systems correction is needed and those are the places to start.

[Yo_Mama]

88. I agree, and the first step is publicity about what is going on

As in this excellent Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-secretive-surveillance-court-rare-scrutiny-in-wake-of-nsa-leaks/2013/06/22/df9eaae6-d9fa-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html

Without information, there can't be meaningful debate.

[HooptieWagon]

107. I agree. The problems are...

...that Congress in general approves of the surveillence state because they recieve campaign funding from the private contractors profiting from govt contracts, and they can crow they are being tough on terrorists (despite evidence the program does little to nothing in combatting terrorism).

The Supreme Court can only rule on the constitutionality if the law is previously challenged in lower courts. The Obama Administration has blocked all lawsuits against the program, alleging that National Security will be compromised, or that the suit filer couldn't prove they had been spied on (while blocking the release of evidence in discovery).
Its truly an out of control program. The NSA budget is almost twice that of the CIA. About 70% of the budget goes to private contractors. There is little oversight from Congress...the govt hides most information from them, and Congress is bribed by the contractors to look away. The secret FISA court is the only Judicial oversight...of the thousands of warrants requested since Obama took office, only one was rejected. And of course, the FISA Court has no enforcement powers...they only rule on warrant requests and have no authority or power to physically prevent warrantless spying.
Furthermore, it appears there has been an Orwellian effort to redefine language..."foreign surviellence" now means at least 50% foreign surveillence, resulting in 85% of the warrents being issued for common domestic drug crimes in 2011. There is also circumstantial evidence the program has been used to spy on political opponents, like Occupy, but the govt refuses to release that information.
Obama is the Chief Executive. He appointed the people running this program. It is his job to supervise his appointees. If they aren't doing the job he wants, they get fired. None have been fired, so logical to assume they are conducting operation according to Obama's desires.
Congress is only going to step up to the plate and conduct the oversight they should if the public outcry is deafening.

[brett_jv]

108. If you're talking about the Verizon thing ...

I'm pretty sure it was a subpoena, not a warrant.

And it was done according to the legal protocols in place.

It's (unfortunately) debatable whether or not collecting bulk phone call meta-data (without the name attached) is something that would violate the 4th amendment. I'm sure we ALL wish this matter had already been decided 'in our favor' but unfortunately it has not been at this point.

Personally my threshold w/regards to the point of when I will get really pissed about the whole thing will be if/when we find out that this data is being 'abused'. Like, for example, if we find out they're using it to try to catch domestic drug dealers (I have to think that metadata would be EXTREMELY useful for catching drug dealers ... I could probably write the algorithm to find those people myself) instead of terrorists.

Not that I'm blind to the fact that someone I ostensibly 'trust' is not going to be 'in charge' forever, because I'm not. I see the proverbial slippery slope, believe me.

I just see the whole thing as more of a systemic problem than a matter of a single person, even if that person is POTUS.

I guess I'm just unable to work up the level of vitriol present in the OP because I never deluded myself into thinking that this young Senator with relatively little experience and few connections in Washington, and without a ton of money of his own prior to becoming President ... was going to end up in a position of being able to enact major 'changes' (like a 'public option' that would basically put the hugely powerful insurance companies out of business w/the stroke of a pen) to the established paradigm ... esp. not one who's half-black. Not that this SHOULD matter, but it unfortunately it does to a sizable enough contingent of people.

I never thought Obama was going to be able to 'do' much of what he said he wanted to. Dunno about you, but I remember the saga of Bill Clinton, which is an illustrative case, because the SAME THING is going on w/Obama's administration. Both Obama and Clinton ... they THOUGHT ... they could 'change' everything in a progressive direction. But then they got into office, and have discovered that they CAN'T.

POTUS is NOT as powerful an office as people imagine it to be UNLESS you have majorly powerful connections (See: Bush/Cheney) when your going into that position. Clinton didn't, and neither does Obama. That's why we're seeing what we're seeing, which is a WAAAAAY similar trajectory.

I personally believe Obama 'plays ball' because he's been convinced he has no other option. His first day, he was probably shown the film that was shot FROM the Grassy Knoll, and been told 'Any further questions?'

Maybe that makes me a 'traitor to the cause' in some people's eyes, but ... whatever. I call it being realistic. There is major, major dollars and entrenched interests in Washington fighting against pretty much everything progressives hold dear. One person cannot change that, even if he is POTUS.

Not that we (DU'ers and our ilk) SHOULDN'T fight for what we believe in, hold Obama's feet to the fire, etc. But ultimately, as long as we don't have 100% publicly-financed elections, we'll never, ever see a USA that even approaches what us progressives would like to see.

[HooptieWagon]

109. All of it.

Phone calls, email, internet usage, google searches, book purchases or library use...Whenever there is a private communication or obtaining of knowledge there is an expectation of privacy guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. Exemptions would be public statements...posting on blogs or message boards, letters to the editor and other published writings, speech made in public for the public.
Even the ph call metadata collection by govt is illegal, imo. An analogy would be the govt recording the sender, reciever, and number of pages of every letter sent by the post office. Assuming thats all they do.....
Given the secrecy, lying and obsfurcation, secret legal arguments, and the yottabytes of data storage space available, it appears very probable the govt is collecting content.

[99Forever]

5. Let 'em flame away.

It goes right to the heart of wtf is wrong. I am bone tired of the lies and those that apologize for the huge bucket of fail that this President has turned out to be.

[tblue]

59. If he stopped this spying and droning

do you think they'd complain, demand that he reinstate these programs they are now defending? Or are the policies beside the point? For me, they are the only point.

To your post:

[99Forever]

60. Good question...

.. to which I don't have an answer, but like you, the policies are the only point. Time after time, Obama has disappointed me and many, many others with Republican style policies. They suck, and it sucks worse that people PRETENDING to be Democrats defend them.

[CrispyQ]

98. "...the huge bucket of fail that this President has turned out to be."

I will say one thing. I am no longer going to vote for the lesser of two evils. The dems have been taking my vote for granted for many, many years & I'm fucking sick of it. This is what the lesser of two evils gets you:

[LuvNewcastle]

100. Same here, Crispy Q. No more lesser evils.

Just look where that strategy has gotten us.

[jsr]

14. He is a socialist

as in socialize the costs and privatize the profits.

[HardTimes99]

15. Don't go for conspiracy theory stuff much, but wonder if

NSA got the drop on Obama

[HardTimes99]

53. I'd be tempted to follow your oh-so-tempting Occam's Razor

explanation, were it not for this disturbing little tidbit I was turned onto last night by another DUer:

Does the NSA have something on President Barack Obama? Maybe, according to former intelligence analyst and whistler-blower Russell Tice. In a radio interview Tice alleged that the NSA ordered a wiretap on Barack Obama in 2004.

Russ Tice, a former intelligence analyst who in 2005 blew the whistle on what he alleged was massive unconstitutional domestic spying across multiple agencies, claimed Wednesday that the NSA had ordered wiretaps on phones connected to then-Senate candidate Barack Obama in 2004…

“Here’s the big one … this was in summer of 2004, one of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a 40-something-year-old wannabe senator for Illinois,” he said. “You wouldn’t happen to know where that guy lives right now would you? It’s a big white house in Washington, D.C. That’s who they went after, and that’s the president of the United States now.”

What did the NSA find out? All Obama’s phone calls and emails were scooped up – was there anything damaging? Such an action would be a great way to gain leverage over a politician and make sure they don’t cancel your program – Tice alleges it was also done to a wide variety of politicians and officials.

“I was worried that the intelligence community now has sway over what is going on,” Tice said.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/06/21/former-intelligence-analyst-obama-was-wiretapped-by-nsa-in-2004/

Thus far, I've seen no independent cooroboration of these allegations from any other source. But I can't help wondering . . .

[Coccydynia]

42. No. Obama doesn't get a pass like that.

Obama does what he does because he believes in what he does.

[HardTimes99]

44. My post and your response illustrate but one of the evils of

secret government - trust evaporates and only faith remains.

[bvar22]

50. Well Said!

[font size=5]

[center]One of the EVILS of SECRET Government:
TRUST evaporates and only FAITH remains.

[/center][/font]

[HardTimes99]

52. Thank you. Like many on this board, I have been spending much time these

past couple weeks trying to wrap my mind around all the twists and turns of this issue. I'll be damned if I know how to stuff the genie back into the bottle whence it sprang, nor whether Leviathan can any longer be tamed through the political\electoral process.

[Fuddnik]

16. That was the day I changed my voter registration to "NO PARTY AFFILIATION".

And I didn't do it lightly. I'm a former Democratic congressional candidate. I've managed progressive congressional campaigns. I was Kerry-Edwards staff. I was a member of my County DEC.

When the Dems took over both houses in 2007, and promptly continued funding the Iraq war, which we elected them to stop, I resigned from the DEC. After several more outrages, retroactive telecom immunity and FISA were the final straws, and I dropped the party. They weren't standing up for our ideals anymore. This wasn't the party I had worked for and supported since McGovern.

And, the longer it goes on, the more convinced I am that I was right. I voted for Obama twice, but I never supported his campaigns. I saw him for what he was back in 2007, and before.

I never have, and never will vote for a Republican. But in the future my vote will have to be earned with actions. Not words and lip service.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Another guy who didn't get his pony, huh?

Me too.

Actually, it isn't not getting the pony that bothers me so much. It's getting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse instead that bothers me.

[Enthusiast]

86. Great way to put it........nt

[KoKo]

114. sigh....

"It's getting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse instead that bothers me."

[chervilant]

58. + at least a gazillion!

I don't recognize either party, and I've had it up to here with the derisive, divisive people who predominate on the inner tubes. If we don't work together to effect change, the corporate megalomaniacs -- who've usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy -- will watch from their safe, secluded private islands and estates as we fight each other into oblivion.

[secondvariety]

8. Just because it's legal

doesn't make it moral.

[abq e streeter]

9. I regret that I have but one rec to give

And regret even more, that I agree so strongly as to wish I could rec it more than once. I wish to hell that I could point out where you're wrong.... but can't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Let me add one thing about the LEGAL side of this

every other police state we know off has taken pains to make all the measures of the state legal as well.

As to the rest, I wish I could recommend this more than once.

[FirstLight]

12. nailed it

It's no longer about who runs or who wins anymore... the corporate interests have the agenda set...the only difference is that when there's a (D) in office, the agenda moves slower because of the need for the illusion of 'being for the people' and when there's an (R) in office they can just barrel it on through...

I am right there with you on All the above points...plus Guantanomo, Wall Street bailouts and lack of prosecuting the Bush admin for war crimes. but when you see they are all really on the same team, you see why they protect each other so well...

and we are not in that club, my friend...we are merely the proles with an illusion of a "free country"

is there really anywhere on the planet that isn't under the control of the banks, oil interests, monsanto, etc... would that I could find *that* country!

[LuvNewcastle]

101. That is it, right there.

Whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in control, we're going off a cliff. The only difference is that the Democrats ease up on the gas a little as we're headed toward it.

[Half-Century Man]

13. We need a lot of things.

And because so much is intertwined I don't think there is a "silver bullet" fix.

But I have to say, the best chance we have of starting to change is someone who keeps their campaign promises. I think we are so desperate to find something to believe in, something we can base hope on. That we will even believe in something tarnished, as long as its only a little tarnished (Our definition of "a little" changes daily).

You asked "What happened to hope and change?What happened to government of the people? "

Hope and change turned out to be advertising hype. The government is of the people, in the narrow 1 % definition of people.

[nineteen50]

19. This is how

fascist empires work.

[Fuddnik]

23. Kick and Rec!

[CrispyQ]

25. The two party system is an illusion.

Dems let a two bit actor shame them over the word liberal, & soon they abandoned liberal policies as well. They should have stood together & said, "Damned right we're liberal, & here's why!" & then gone on to recite that Joe Conservative essay. Instead, they backed down. They looked weak & the repubs & the media knew then that they could just poke fun at something & the dems would back away from it. Before you know it, most of the dems were on the corporate gravy train, too. They've had some catching up to do, but they've done well overall.

It's a disgusting mess. The electoral process is so corrupted with money & compromised with gerrymandering, electronic voting, voter apathy (although that one is starting to make sense), I don't know if we can reclaim our government through the ballot box.

[Eddie Haskell]

81. The two party system is a tag team that advances its agenda by deception.

No hope for change, while they're in control.

[duffyduff]

111. That's because neoliberal backers took control over both parties.

No longer is rigging elections ala 2000 and 2004 necessary. They got hold of the Democratic Party via infiltration and the installation of Manchurian candidate puppets in Washington.

The last Democratic Party presidential nominee was John Kerry.

[BobbyBoring]

26. K and R!

Once again, I think this shows how powerful POTUS is. Not very. Obama is doing what he's told to do in order to avoid another messy Grassy Knoll kind of thing. That's the only thing that can explain the difference between 08 campaign Obama and second term Obama IMHO~

[kiva]

29. Sorry, I don't believe this.

I've seen this excuse used by fans in the past with no proof given. This is a risk that every president is exposed to, and if someone is unwilling to take that risk - and I can understand why they do not - then they should not run for the office.

[quakerboy]

47. It seems believable enough to me

I don't know that anything so simplistic has happened. It may be as simple as a preformed agenda with a decent actor tricking us all. Or as simple as a well meaning man who has fallen prey to money, misinformation, or the enticements of power.

But I can see a candidate saying "I can take this chance, I will not be corrupted no matter what they try to do to me" and then folding under the pressure of "Have you really thought this through Mr President? You know, on a totaly unrelated note, your daughters are wonderful kids. Did you know that in some cultures people throw acid on women who they feel are dishonored?"

Its a lot easier to take a hypothetical "no matter what it costs" stand than to stand up for the right in a real life situation. I think most of us have failed at this in our own personal lives in some much smaller way, under a lot less pressure than a president is likely to face.

[kiva]

96. I expect someone who runs for,

and is elected president, to do those hard things. It sounds harsh put that way, but that's why not just anyone is president... OK, there's little Bush, but he was the exception.

As I said above, every president faces this threat - if they are going to fold, then why bother having a president? Why not just abolish the office as 'too dangerous' and go with a Parliament?

[quakerboy]

118. Why even have a parliment?

Direct Democracy is possible, given our current technology. Why do we need representative democracy?

But thats another argument.

All I am saying is that its easy to think you will do the right thing, no matter what. Its a lot harder to put it into practice. Especially in the face of overwhelming power, and especially when there are so many easy options that look so harmless, but lead almost inevitably into compromise.

[avaistheone1]

80. *100

This is just an excuse for Obama carrying out a republican lite agenda.

[Enthusiast]

87. Exactly.

Try as I might, I simply cannot see it any other way.

[zeemike]

46. The Grassy Knoll is so old school.

Information is the new shooter....if you know everything about someone you have a bullet aimed at the head...especial if you have a compliant press...and they now have both....no need for that messy grassy knoll.

[MotherPetrie]

27. K&R

[treestar]

41. betrayal? You'd think he was your boyfriend or something.

For all you know there is a lot more transparency out there - you just focused in on one issue only.

There are many government agencies. You pick the one that is supposed to be secretive to focus in on.

[backwoodsbob]

43. one issue?Did you even read the OP?

ONE ISSUE?REALLY?

If you don't have a clue...and apparently you don't...I could forward you one COD

[treestar]

48. Yeah.

The tipping point is the NSA. That's your tipping point.

But it sounds like you were betrayed back at time of the ACA and went from there. And yet how can you not hold Congress as betraying you? They don't count? Obama did as best he could with what he had.

[backwoodsbob]

55. so how does is work?

is the president a weak figurehead as you suggest whereby it doesn't matter who we elect...or

Does the president have power that this administration hasn't used?

[cstanleytech]

106. Its not that the president of the US is weak its that if one of the political parties wants to

they have rules and procedures in place that can make his job a nightmare and as we have seen the republicans (no matter what new name they try to hide behind) were focused on one thing and one thing only which was making this administration look worse than the last one because they know they fubared big time after Bush was sworn in.

[JDPriestly]

76. Obama could have let us know about the spying program much earlier

and not waited until Snowden came forth. Had he done this, we really could have had a good, national discussion about it, but now, we feel betrayed.

Today I spoke to a woman that I think of as a disgruntled conservative. She doesn't like the wars, but she thinks Democrats don't have the answers. She is probably a real independent. She is angry about the surveillance program, and it woke her up to an obvious contradiction: if we are so close to broke that we have to cut Social Security benefits, why are we spending so much money on this enormous surveillance program?

I think that a lot of Americans are asking that question. This surveillance program is a luxury, and we have been told we can't afford luxuries -- like food stamps for everyone who will go hungry without them.

Obama has really missed it by not going to the people as soon as Republicans started playing the austerity card and asking us about our priorities. I think we would all like to see less money spent on anti-terrorist reactions and on wars. Those are two areas on which we have drastically overspent. And this secret surveillance program proves it.

[JDPriestly]

72. This is the mother of all issues.

If your government spies on you, you are nothing. And our government is spying on everyone and spying with a vengeance on anyone who has contacts with people overseas.

It's like you are nothing, and your government owns you. I cannot understand how anyone can fail to see that we are on the path to a totalitarian government and right at the point of no return.

What is more, we have utterly no privacy because the British and who knows who else is probably spying on is and is not bound by our Constitution. This is about a small clique of people being able to control you through its knowledge of the personal details of your life. It's about a band of criminals taking control.

[Enthusiast]

89. It is the mother of all issues.

Another example of a totalitarian government is the TPP. We will have it whether we want it or not. It will damage us irreparably, but it doesn't matter as long as the bottom line is improved for "someone".

Notice they never publish a poll on the TPP. I think we can guess why. Not that "they" are above faking the results of polls at this point.

Again, the propaganda effort is just as great as the surveillance effort.

[forestpath]

45. K&R

[Progressive dog]

49. Flame thrower here

"We voted for the guy who mocked Hillary Clinton in debates for calling for an insurance mandate...and then enacted one. We voted for the guy who said he would never sign a health care reform bill without *a robust public option* and then he threw that under the bus without a fight."
Shouldn't those two only piss you off once.
And
"We voted for the guy who wanted more transparency in government...who is negotiating a trade agreement behind closed doors who refuses to let even elected reps become involved " Artcle 2, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution explains how this treaty stuff works.

[HiPointDem]

77. +1. there's more on that list too. said he'd end the war & expanded it, said he'd close

guantanamo and hasn't...said he was pro-education and privatized it, said he liked the social safety net and cut it etc etc.

[Turbineguy]

51. Yeah me too.

I'll just vote republican next time. They'll fix things.

[graham4anything]

54. You gave me a great tip about track bowling ball, so I will refrain. LOL. (this time)

[backwoodsbob]

61. I told you we rarely agree :)

I calls em like I sees em...sorry

[bhikkhu]

56. I'm not pissed off, and I don't feel betrayed

I wonder if it is a generational thing. I was born in the mid-sixties, so I was brought up in some fear of "the bomb". While I was never afraid of communists or communism (as many people older than me seem to have been), I grew up with a world-view colored by a very combative international situation, completely polarized between two ideologies. Of course there was spying and surveillance of all kinds, as much as technology would allow.

I always assumed that communication via public utilities (telephone lines, radio and so forth) was monitored, or could be monitored. Public stuff is public, and you can't expect to have a private conversation in a public place. We've had extensive intelligence networks in place since WWII. What do people think they've been doing?

Perhaps younger people just never got the idea that the world isn't necessarily peaceful, and that there is always some underlying struggle for advantage between nations, even when (or especially when) there is no actual war. Everyone knows Israel has extensive spy networks here. What do people think they do? They work toward their own national interests, the same as everyone else.

The US intelligence networks work toward our national interests. I can't imagine fearing them, as a US citizen, even when bush was president. I can't imagine caring if someone reads my emails (the internet - another "public" place) or keeps track of phone calls...I would venture to say that more harm might be done by lack of intelligence, by making guesses, by not having anything to go on, by simply getting the wrong guys, - than by an efficient working intelligence system.

But maybe that's just my age. I keep coming across shock and surprise at stuff I've taken for granted for years. Again, what did people think our intelligence system was doing?

[tblue]

57. Dear backwoodsbob,

No flame from me, except this:

You are SO not alone. People who don't feel betrayed are essentially saying these are the policies they voted for. Ergo, they own this too. If that's the case, we've got a much bigger problem than PBO. We've got a unilaterally self-disarming compliant electorate. That's not just unhealthy for democracy. That is freaking scary.

[Agony]

112. Dear tblue, RIGHT ON!

Cheerio,
Agony

Kick and Rec

[90-percent]

62. Why does our Constitutional Law Professor President now hate us for our freedoms?

Well, here's a nice theory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210602#post14

Secondly, and there's some threads on DU discussing this that I have to peruse, is that NSA got the blackmail goods on Barack back in 2004. They do seem like they have the power to scrutinize the electronic life of anybody, especially people they don't like.

It's like all our politicians are being blackmailed by the likes of the Koch Brothers?

-90% Jimmy

[HiPointDem]

75. whether they *are* blackmailing or not, they have the capability. they possibly even have the

capability to insert damaging information into people's records. a fake email here, a fake phone transcript there, some kiddie porn files -- who's going to have the access + capability to say they're fake?

[90-percent]

84. Excellent point!

And your post is the first I've ever seen that mentions such an extremely plausible possibility!

Thanks for bringing such a profound point to our national discussion.

I hope somebody like Rachel or Lawrence or Thom or Amy or Chris runs with it!

-90% Jimmy

[HiPointDem]

117. a cheesy bad movie but there's lots of food for thought in it -- has the same scenario

[DeSwiss]

64. No, I'm pissed off about ALL of it. :-/ - K&R n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

65. Transparency

[blkmusclmachine]

66. Change

[blkmusclmachine]

67. Democrat(ic)

[ErikJ]

73. That's why I tuned out his speeches long ago. He doesnt walk the talk-at all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. But, he did keep his campaign promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Which was the deal breaker for me.

[leftstreet]

104. He also took Michelle on a date, and got the kids a dog

Promises kept!

[nolabels]

83. Mostly if you didn't know you were voting for the lesser of two evils then........

DU is doing a poor job at educating. More likely though you haven't been reading as much as you should. I don't feel betrayed, i am thinking i got what was on the menu. As long as we keep letting corporations and money chose who are candidates are, and how they can erect legislation then we should continue to expect more of the same and worse. We will need a revolution like the one they had in 1776 to change things like could and should be. It will have to be one that puts that side out of the loop, and so until then, keep holding your breath

[KG]

85. but, but. what about the relaxed confidence, the great smile. the awesome wife and kids. and the abs

don't those count for anything?

[nradisic]

90. Yup...

I agree wholeheartedly...

and South Carolina vacations are awesome, especially so on HHI!

[backwoodsbob]

97. I LOVE Hilton head

All my friends from Virginia and Michigan want to go to Myrtle Beach but HH is so much nicer

[Civilization2]

92. Government without the consent of The Governed is illegitimate..,

So you vote for one thing and get something very different,. where is the democracy?

This system of representative government is broken. Secrecy in government is always a bad thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

[cantbeserious]

93. Right You Are - When Politicians Make Promises They Don't Intend To Keep - There's A Place In ...

eom

[obxhead]

95. With friends like these

who needs enemies.

You said it very well bwb. This isn't the change I voted and fought for.

[whttevrr]

99. Secret Courts?

Where in the constitution does it say we allow secret courts?

[Not Sure]

103. +1

You've summed up my feelings about this presidency. There have been things I didn't like about it, but I always imagined the alternative and felt okay. Lately, that just isn't enough. In fact, I sometimes doubt the opposition could have been competent enough to fuck us over as bad as this administration has.

[leftstreet]

105. DURec

[Harmony Blue]

113. A healthy democracy is a transparent one

enough said.

[FirstLight]

115. K&R

I forgot to do this yesterday...and this conversation is really good, i appreciate everyone here who have made such amazing and valid points...

but if it isn't *just* about the POTUS and we see that it is really the govt as a whole...and mostly the PTB that are holding the cash standing in the shadows... what the HELL do we DO about it? there's the rub... we probably can't even TALK about this openly because then we are all on the list of 'seditionists' right?


oops...i said to much already...here comes that black SUV....

[Poll_Blind]

116. I just came back to respond to this thread a second time. You nailed it. nt

PB