It can be confusing to discover that there is nuance within the progressive movement if you are used to Republicans, where neocons were mostly formed as international-leaning war-hawks but got roped into also being religious fundamentalists and anti-tax warriors by their secret masters. Being progressive and strong on national security aren't contradictory viewpoints.
I feel like being progressive and supporting broad monitoring of the movements and activities of citizens who have committed no crime, particularly when they aren't even inside the country, is antithetical to progressivism as described by folks around here.
I don't agree because of the following, spoilered in an attempt to let people skip past and not derail the thread, but I'm making a genuine attempt to use the more generous meaning in deference to folks on the forum who have taken me to task about this in the past. According to them, being progressive should run counter to broad surveillance powers over American citizens.
According to me, progressive ideology leads naturally to authoritarian oppression and it's no surprise at all to see progressives argue in favor of spying on Americans now just in case they might decide to do a bad thing later. But, to belabor the point, I'm trying not to bring that perspective to bear in this case.
This is off-topic, as no particularly progressive candidates have been identified for 2016 yet, but I will spoiler a response here. If you'd like to argue further about it, you are free to message me.
Again, the progressive movement is about populist progress. Better schools, more fairness to minorities, more transparency both with government and business. There's no one way to do progressiveness, so there is some debate as to what the correct course of action is in any particular circumstance. Ultimately, a lot of progressives are willing to give up some freedom if it means being safer... being safe allows the people to enjoy the benefits of a progressive society. Like... seat belts. They restrict your movement a little, but are a a small price to pay if you want to drive your car on public roads (thank you progressive infrastructure) with your chosen life partner (thank you progressive marriage equality) on the weekend (thank you progressive unions) with your children who aren't dying of polio (thank you progressive medicine).
None of this is particularly related to foreign policy or spying. Progressivism is more a state-based political school of thought, not an international.
Concerning Rand Paul, he might not bother to run. As it turns out you can't appear on two separate ballots in Kentucky which is a problem because his senate seat comes up for reelection in 2016. If he runs then his seat is gone no matter the outcome.
I'm starting to wonder if he'll run at all. He's learning the very hard truth about running for president on rigid principles; turns out it's very hard to hold up simplistic viewpoints when confronted with the actual messy reality of the world. (A consistent failing of libertarianism in general I might add.) So now he's see sawing back and forth trying to please everyone and just making himself look like the twerp he is.
Smart move would just be to shore up his local support for now, so later on he can be like his dad and just funnel donations into presidential campaigns that are never going to win anything.
It can be confusing to discover that there is nuance within the progressive movement if you are used to Republicans, where neocons were mostly formed as international-leaning war-hawks but got roped into also being religious fundamentalists and anti-tax warriors by their secret masters. Being progressive and strong on national security aren't contradictory viewpoints.
I feel like being progressive and supporting broad monitoring of the movements and activities of citizens who have committed no crime, particularly when they aren't even inside the country, is antithetical to progressivism as described by folks around here.
I don't agree because of the following, spoilered in an attempt to let people skip past and not derail the thread, but I'm making a genuine attempt to use the more generous meaning in deference to folks on the forum who have taken me to task about this in the past. According to them, being progressive should run counter to broad surveillance powers over American citizens.
According to me, progressive ideology leads naturally to authoritarian oppression and it's no surprise at all to see progressives argue in favor of spying on Americans now just in case they might decide to do a bad thing later. But, to belabor the point, I'm trying not to bring that perspective to bear in this case.
This is off-topic, as no particularly progressive candidates have been identified for 2016 yet, but I will spoiler a response here. If you'd like to argue further about it, you are free to message me.
Again, the progressive movement is about populist progress. Better schools, more fairness to minorities, more transparency both with government and business. There's no one way to do progressiveness, so there is some debate as to what the correct course of action is in any particular circumstance. Ultimately, a lot of progressives are willing to give up some freedom if it means being safer... being safe allows the people to enjoy the benefits of a progressive society. Like... seat belts. They restrict your movement a little, but are a a small price to pay if you want to drive your car on public roads (thank you progressive infrastructure) with your chosen life partner (thank you progressive marriage equality) on the weekend (thank you progressive unions) with your children who aren't dying of polio (thank you progressive medicine).
None of this is particularly related to foreign policy or spying. Progressivism is more a state-based political school of thought, not an international.
I wouldn't bother retorting, he's just trying to derail the thread.
Anyway, whatever you think about progressives, those who support Warren should know that she's on board for more government spying on Americans.
fyi hth
Hold on, let me just list every politician that I agree with 100% of the time:
Why be sarcastic? That's unneeded. For some people this is an important data point that shifts opinions, for others it doesn't change their opinion or their willingness to support her. That's obvious - no need to be a goose about it.
What spool personally feels to be the definition of "progressive" is not the subject of this thread, so we shall now stop talking about it.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+6
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Anyway, whatever you think about progressives, those who support Warren should know that she's on board for more government spying on Americans.
fyi hth
Are there any major politicians at this point who aren't for expanding the surveillance state?
Rand Paul?
I don't know, are there any Democrats opposed to it? There certainly are some Republicans in Congress opposed to it, but idk if that's because Obama is President.
Which is weird because I've met pretty much zero progressives who are enthusiastic about increased surveillance, or who have anything less than "disdainful sarcasm" as a response to the state of surveillance now.
It seems like one of those policies that no one besides those who are in power actually wants.
Yeah, same reason few people seriously run on a platform of "maybe prison sentences are a little bit too harsh" or "maybe prison rape isn't a 'feature.'"
You're not going to get an electable candidate for president running on "less security".
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Which is weird because I've met pretty much zero progressives who are enthusiastic about increased surveillance, or who have anything less than "disdainful sarcasm" as a response to the state of surveillance now.
It seems like one of those policies that no one besides those who are in power actually wants.
Really? I'd say my experience is that there's a huge spread in the left-wing on governmental intelligence operations and the limits of freedoms.
The limits of personal freedom and the good of the collective are like the fundamental discussions of liberalism both old and new and there's alot of thinking on it.
Yeah, same reason few people seriously run on a platform of "maybe prison sentences are a little bit too harsh" or "maybe prison rape isn't a 'feature.'"
You're not going to get an electable candidate for president running on "less security".
Do you think it'd be easier for a candidate from the right to take the anti-surveillance position?
Yeah, same reason few people seriously run on a platform of "maybe prison sentences are a little bit too harsh" or "maybe prison rape isn't a 'feature.'"
You're not going to get an electable candidate for president running on "less security".
Do you think it'd be easier for a candidate from the right to take the anti-surveillance position?
Yeah, same reason few people seriously run on a platform of "maybe prison sentences are a little bit too harsh" or "maybe prison rape isn't a 'feature.'"
You're not going to get an electable candidate for president running on "less security".
Do you think it'd be easier for a candidate from the right to take the anti-surveillance position?
Yes, as long as it's limited to the right people. Case in point, Rand Paul.
Yeah, same reason few people seriously run on a platform of "maybe prison sentences are a little bit too harsh" or "maybe prison rape isn't a 'feature.'"
You're not going to get an electable candidate for president running on "less security".
Do you think it'd be easier for a candidate from the right to take the anti-surveillance position?
Yes, as long as it's limited to the right people. Case in point, Rand Paul.
His anti-surveillance position has been couched in the furor over the NSA leaks, most specifically the blanket surveillance of nearly all american electronic communications. (Which I agreed with him over, though I question his motives behind doing it.) But I think he'd have a hard time saying that the US shouldn't be keeping an eye on any American citizens who are taking trips to Syria right now.
Yeah, same reason few people seriously run on a platform of "maybe prison sentences are a little bit too harsh" or "maybe prison rape isn't a 'feature.'"
You're not going to get an electable candidate for president running on "less security".
Do you think it'd be easier for a candidate from the right to take the anti-surveillance position?
Sort of an "Only Nixon can go to China" sort of thing? Not really. Once upon a time, it might have been the case that GOP pols could get away with less standard conservative positions because they already had perceived clout. Nowadays, having a less-standard conservative position just gets you primaried or - in the context of a primary - not elected.
If they waited until the general to come out? Maybe it's theoretically possible, but if I'm the GOP candidate running the calculus, I'm not seeing anti-surveillance as any kind of net gain. Consider that actual swing (read: low-information) voters, as distinct from what the media likes to pretend are swing voters, are a squirrely bunch and more likely to be moved by base appeals to emotion like "we need to protect you from the baddies by any means possible," and I'm just not seeing it.
Is it possible that a GOP candidate could secretly be anti-surveillance and then win office and actually try to rein in the surveillance state? I guess, but I'm still not seeing it as likely.
Surveillance is not going to come up unless there is a legitimate ground-swell of opposition to the status quo. And right now, people have other things to give a shit about.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think it also has something to do with when people who had not gotten all the presidential security briefs first start getting them they realize the world is a very scary place and then are much more hesitant to undo power they currently have. It would take a pretty huge ground swell to turn that around and it would only last until the first terrorist attack and it would go back to what we have now.
"Well, maybe these powers are a little excessive, but only in the hands of somebody irresponsible. Good thing I'm so responsible!" - every president ever
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+18
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
"Well, maybe these powers are a little excessive, but only in the hands of somebody irresponsible. Good thing I'm so responsible!" - every president ever
I find it startling that this isn't an actual quote from Futurama's Nixon.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Anyway, whatever you think about progressives, those who support Warren should know that she's on board for more government spying on Americans.
fyi hth
Are there any major politicians at this point who aren't for expanding the surveillance state?
Rand Paul?
I don't know, are there any Democrats opposed to it? There certainly are some Republicans in Congress opposed to it, but idk if that's because Obama is President.
Rand Paul advocted using drones to kill Americans under investigation for terrorism charges within te United States in the wake of the Boston bombing.
I think it also has something to do with when people who had not gotten all the presidential security briefs first start getting them they realize the world is a very scary place and then are much more hesitant to undo power they currently have. It would take a pretty huge ground swell to turn that around and it would only last until the first terrorist attack and it would go back to what we have now.
Yeah, even if you don't think the world is that scary, I imagine the intelligence agencies make sure it looks like their powers are necessary.
I woke up early this morning and thought, hey, I bet David Petraeus could run* now if he was so inclined. Does the thread think the voting public can forgive his affair leading to resignation or should I file this under the crazy dream thread instead?
* This is not an endorsement, personally I am uncertain about voting for him but can imagine much worse too.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Voters will forgive just about anything, up to and including corruption and jail time, in some cases, but I doubt they'd forgive Petraeus. Infidelity is a special bugaboo as far as the public goes. Plus, he was pretty inept about perpetrating the whole thing. And although people still value service, I don't think anybody's gotten a ton of war glory out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I've certainly never heard anybody talk about him beyond the scandal and specific discussions of war policy.
I woke up early this morning and thought, hey, I bet David Petraeus could run* now if he was so inclined. Does the thread think the voting public can forgive his affair leading to resignation or should I file this under the crazy dream thread instead?
* This is not an endorsement, personally I am uncertain about voting for him but can imagine much worse too.
I have a co-worker that worked security for Petraeus. He said that he'd been earmarked for all sorts of special forces training and whatnot, but after the scandal he found that all that dried up. A lot of military folks still really respect the General. Quietly.
"Well, maybe these powers are a little excessive, but only in the hands of somebody irresponsible. Good thing I'm so responsible!" - every president ever
I woke up early this morning and thought, hey, I bet David Petraeus could run* now if he was so inclined. Does the thread think the voting public can forgive his affair leading to resignation or should I file this under the crazy dream thread instead?
* This is not an endorsement, personally I am uncertain about voting for him but can imagine much worse too.
I think there are plenty of people who have a boner for him, that it might not matter. For me, I see the affair less as a thing and more about it taking place while deployed. I am sure he took stripes away from people doing the same thing he was doing, which I think he was high enough up to affect change on that policy at the time. Also wasnt there a thing from Fox news asking him if he was interested, they would run it to ground?
PSN: jfrofl
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Petreaus was all but certain to be president at some point.
Now, I don't think he'd make it out of a primary.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
"Well, maybe these powers are a little excessive, but only in the hands of somebody irresponsible. Good thing I'm so responsible!" - every president ever
Clearly the only good President is Peter Parker.
Until he possibly sells the soul of his unborn daughter to the devil.
"Well, maybe these powers are a little excessive, but only in the hands of somebody irresponsible. Good thing I'm so responsible!" - every president ever
Clearly the only good President is Peter Parker.
Until he possibly sells the soul of his unborn daughter to the devil.
"Well, maybe these powers are a little excessive, but only in the hands of somebody irresponsible. Good thing I'm so responsible!" - every president ever
Clearly the only good President is Peter Parker.
Until he possibly sells the soul of his unborn daughter to the devil.
The book was really ambiguous on that front.
What book is this?
One More Day - Peter Parker makes a deal with Mephisto to save Aunt May's life. As a consequence, Peter and Mary Jane's marriage is dissolved from history and their future daughter (whom Peter had encountered throughout the book) is also erased.
More relevant to the thread, should the 2016 ticket be Luthor/Osborne or Osborne/Luthor?
I would struggle to vote for Petreus, but I might do so.
I don't understand how this thread can shrug at white house infidelity and reminisce about Clinton and still suggest that voters won't forgive infidelity.
I mean, Mark Sanford, guys. You can "hike the Appalachian Trail" and still get elected.
I would struggle to vote for Petreus, but I might do so.
I don't understand how this thread can shrug at white house infidelity and reminisce about Clinton and still suggest that voters won't forgive infidelity.
I mean, Mark Sanford, guys. You can "hike the Appalachian Trail" and still get elected.
Different time periods and a different political, media, and social structure. Culture changes.
Posts
cite?
It's upthread like a dozen po-
Oh we're on a new page.
here: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/30672758/#Comment_30672758
Hold on, let me just list every politician that I agree with 100% of the time:
This is off-topic, as no particularly progressive candidates have been identified for 2016 yet, but I will spoiler a response here. If you'd like to argue further about it, you are free to message me.
None of this is particularly related to foreign policy or spying. Progressivism is more a state-based political school of thought, not an international.
I'm starting to wonder if he'll run at all. He's learning the very hard truth about running for president on rigid principles; turns out it's very hard to hold up simplistic viewpoints when confronted with the actual messy reality of the world. (A consistent failing of libertarianism in general I might add.) So now he's see sawing back and forth trying to please everyone and just making himself look like the twerp he is.
Smart move would just be to shore up his local support for now, so later on he can be like his dad and just funnel donations into presidential campaigns that are never going to win anything.
I wouldn't bother retorting, he's just trying to derail the thread.
Why be sarcastic? That's unneeded. For some people this is an important data point that shifts opinions, for others it doesn't change their opinion or their willingness to support her. That's obvious - no need to be a goose about it.
Are there any major politicians at this point who aren't for expanding the surveillance state?
Rand Paul?
I don't know, are there any Democrats opposed to it? There certainly are some Republicans in Congress opposed to it, but idk if that's because Obama is President.
It seems like one of those policies that no one besides those who are in power actually wants.
You're not going to get an electable candidate for president running on "less security".
Really? I'd say my experience is that there's a huge spread in the left-wing on governmental intelligence operations and the limits of freedoms.
The limits of personal freedom and the good of the collective are like the fundamental discussions of liberalism both old and new and there's alot of thinking on it.
Do you think it'd be easier for a candidate from the right to take the anti-surveillance position?
No.
Yes, as long as it's limited to the right people. Case in point, Rand Paul.
His anti-surveillance position has been couched in the furor over the NSA leaks, most specifically the blanket surveillance of nearly all american electronic communications. (Which I agreed with him over, though I question his motives behind doing it.) But I think he'd have a hard time saying that the US shouldn't be keeping an eye on any American citizens who are taking trips to Syria right now.
Sort of an "Only Nixon can go to China" sort of thing? Not really. Once upon a time, it might have been the case that GOP pols could get away with less standard conservative positions because they already had perceived clout. Nowadays, having a less-standard conservative position just gets you primaried or - in the context of a primary - not elected.
If they waited until the general to come out? Maybe it's theoretically possible, but if I'm the GOP candidate running the calculus, I'm not seeing anti-surveillance as any kind of net gain. Consider that actual swing (read: low-information) voters, as distinct from what the media likes to pretend are swing voters, are a squirrely bunch and more likely to be moved by base appeals to emotion like "we need to protect you from the baddies by any means possible," and I'm just not seeing it.
Is it possible that a GOP candidate could secretly be anti-surveillance and then win office and actually try to rein in the surveillance state? I guess, but I'm still not seeing it as likely.
Surveillance is not going to come up unless there is a legitimate ground-swell of opposition to the status quo. And right now, people have other things to give a shit about.
- every president ever
Rand Paul advocted using drones to kill Americans under investigation for terrorism charges within te United States in the wake of the Boston bombing.
Yeah, even if you don't think the world is that scary, I imagine the intelligence agencies make sure it looks like their powers are necessary.
* This is not an endorsement, personally I am uncertain about voting for him but can imagine much worse too.
More likely.
Unless they're being reminded every 10 minutes, if it happened more than 4 months ago, it never happened,
Clearly the only good President is Peter Parker.
The documentary on North's senate run is eye opening to say the least; dude almost pulled it off, by the end even I started to like him.
I think there are plenty of people who have a boner for him, that it might not matter. For me, I see the affair less as a thing and more about it taking place while deployed. I am sure he took stripes away from people doing the same thing he was doing, which I think he was high enough up to affect change on that policy at the time. Also wasnt there a thing from Fox news asking him if he was interested, they would run it to ground?
Now, I don't think he'd make it out of a primary.
Until he possibly sells the soul of his unborn daughter to the devil.
The book was really ambiguous on that front.
What book is this?
More relevant to the thread, should the 2016 ticket be Luthor/Osborne or Osborne/Luthor?
I don't understand how this thread can shrug at white house infidelity and reminisce about Clinton and still suggest that voters won't forgive infidelity.
I mean, Mark Sanford, guys. You can "hike the Appalachian Trail" and still get elected.
Different time periods and a different political, media, and social structure. Culture changes.