Because some people only have one tool in their tool box.

https://www.facebook.com/

I hope that we are not falling down the rat hole of "strongman" government. We have so many examples of the mess that eventually follows, such as pre WWII Germany, most of the current Middle East and Africa, Venezuela, and other South American nations. Recently, Turkey and the Philippines are trying this out. Basically, this approach seems like a quick fix for widely perceived problems, but things quickly go down hill when the strongman gets comfy, then feels that he needs to protect his role. The theme seems to be the masses feeling marginalized by the ruling class, then revolting. This "revolt" can be an actual physical insurrection or a vote.

[Link: abcnewsgo.co]

I'm sure that doesn't bother Mac, Papa or Stanley. They are already puppets, they can just become puppets for the UN.

Well it started with Bill's telecommunication act in the 90s. It got much, much worse with W and his campaign on terror (Patriot Act and other nefarious erosions of our privacy and rights).

So why would you expect it to be any different with following presidents?

And it won't be any different with Hillary.... or even Donald, if he were elected.

1984 is taking a little longer than Orwell predicted but it is gradually getting there, one chink in the armor at a time.

They already know everything we say, text and email (The NSA,Google and FB). And there are already algorithms for predictive behavior (PDK nailed this one).

Ironic that the paranoid right, which is the vast majority of it, rails against real or imagined leftist tyranny, Obama takin mah gunz, government oppression, you name it.

Has no issue with Trump. An unabashed and vociferous strong man.

In reality, erosion of our privacy should not be a partisan issue. It should concern citizens of all persuasions. I don't see too many politicians being concerned about it, even that it is no secret and most people are aware of the problem.

But as long as privacy intrusions become a talking platform for loonies like Alex Jones, then it gets dismissed due to the association with conspiracy nut jobs like Jones.

Trump would be no better about this. He talks about securing America but I don't think for one minute he would initiate rolling back eavesdropping laws and giving citizens back their privacy rights. That's way too much power to give away, and politicians love nothing if not more power.

Easier to talk about blocking gun laws than giving the people back their real power (privacy). Gun rights strike the needed nerve.

And I certainly know that Hillary would not give up this power either.

Another big thing to consider, when you are watching your heavily left or right leaning youtube videos or railing about the excesses of the other side and whatnot, is that extreme polarization has the effect of keeping the dis-/less-enfranchised parts of the population (left and right) screaming at and fighting with each other; and, even crazier, actually protecting the enfranchised from their excesses because they are 'on our side.' It's psycho to see poor or barely middle class people expending so much energy to help a person, with whom they have almost nothing in common in terms of their actual life circumstances, achieve his or her political dreams.

They are somehow convinced that this is going to make their lives better, but it's pretty obvious that nothing fundamental changes, because that same polarization prevents it. Actually, I retract that. They are convinced that the other side winning will make their lives worse, I think is what it really is. That's way easier to do and that doesn't require giving solid details about you are going to do, you only have to make it seem dangerous what you claim the other side is going to do.

I'm not so cynical as to hold that all or most politicians don't believe in any ideals at all, I'm sure that they do, many of them probably unhealthily so. But, if you can keep the level of polarization high, then the hoi polloi expend almost all of their energies in useless bickering and back and forth. That energy might otherwise be turned towards government, which wouldn't be good at all for them if it were the combined energies of both sides. It would mean that if any of them stepped out of line or failed to do a job, they'd be gone, not protected by their crew of flag waving zealots.

It's like starting a war to distract the populace, but without all the messy political blowback of, you know, dead kids and whatnot. And it can run 24/7, apparently indefinitely, whereas wars have a bad habit of running out of cannon fodder eventually.

Absolutely. It's not a partisan issue. That should not stop us from acknowledging how privacy issues are addressed or used by parties or ideologies. My point stands that there's a pretty significant hypocrisy based in the right that the current government (and by default the Democratic party) is oppressive and will grow in it's oppressiveness, yet supports or has little complaint of a Trump presidency. This belief system is embodied in part of the progressive left Bernie or Bust circles, so it's not unique to the right.

The coalescence of the right, the left Bernie or Busters, Alex Jones (Trump has been on his show more than once and supports Trump), now Wikileaks is openly linking to Breitbart to push conspiracy theories about deaths linked to the Democratic party. Then there seems to be some fascination with Putin on the American right, Trump's seeming fawning over him, and know Russian influence in this and other country's political processes. Assange's strange relationship with Russia/Snowden/RT.

So no party or ideology has a lock for or against privacy issues or oppression. But it seems pretty clear to any objective person the parties and ideologies are not the same, and one would think you start with the better one first and move to improve from there.

You know we're kinda screwed either way. I look at it from the perspective of someone that likes money.

I feel that we're better off financially with Trump.

Explain why not?

If the argument is that Trump is doing this to make himself richer, so what, do you think she's not going to benefit monetarily from being president.

Did you hear that? Are you sure this line is clean?

All we really know about Trump is that he slid out of the right vagina. He inherited money and an established business. There isn't any evidence that hes any better at business than a stock picking squirrel.

I could pluck any random stranger out of the park and hand them Trump's life and they too would appear to be a successful business man.


I'm still not convinced that hes worth more than a few hundred million. I would like to see his financial information including taxes from the last few years. If hes really worth the 10 or 7 or 3 billion he claims to be worth then that might actually be evidence of him being a good business man vs some guy with enough money to be able to keep rolling the dice until he makes a few bucks. Average Americans do not have that luxury.


I haven't heard anyone say that Trump is doing this to make himself richer. I would wager it has more to do with his ego and wanting to be king of the world.

Power is the crack cocaine of money. You can take a ton of money and cook it down into a pound of power, but that's not a very efficient way to obtain it. If you want a steady stream of the good stuff, you have to go to the source.

You should explain why. Instead of making a simplistic statement having others do the work.

He lies daily, pushes conspiracy theory, talks seriously deporting millions and persecuting a religious group, is cavalier about violence, and retweets racists.

But hey, more duckets in mah pocketz!