this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
141 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2151 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/15183880

Well it wasn't just Trump loyalists; it was 19 Republicans in the Freedom Caucus (who are indeed Trump loyalists) and almost all the Democrats voting agains bringing the current bill to the floor. Now what?

"Congressional sources tell WIRED they have no idea what the next steps will be."

Oh.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's obvious he doesn't want to be caught in the act of selling all the 'missing' classified docs he's still hiding

And the rest of his traitorous collaborations

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 54 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I don't care how much dirt FISA could enable us to dig up on Trump, the trade isn't worth it. It'd be the epitome of biting off your nose to spite your face

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone needs more evidence that Trump is a crook; I think the concern is that Trump is enough in cahoots with for-real foreign adversaries who are at odds with FISA-authorized surveillance (as it makes real operational problems for them), and they might be telling him how badly he needs to kill this to weaken it. He usually doesn't get anywhere deep into policy on this kind of stuff. Unless someone smarter than him is telling him what's important, he just talks about windmills and toilets and Crooked Hillary and how the election was stolen.

I honestly don't know whether it's that, or whether he's having an unexpected interest in policy details just because it came to his attention somehow and he knows the US national security apparatus is bad because it was mean to him. It could be either one.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Cool story. Still murder." I have really serious problems with how FISA has been used in the past. I usually could go either way on authorizing state surveillance but it has been abused too much for me to be comfortable keeping it around in its current form

As far as trump is concerned, even a broken clock is right twice a day

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah. And it could be both -- it could be both a useful tool for law enforcement to wiretap foreign adversaries that are trying to elect Trump or do something similarly awful, and also a convenient loophole if they want to track protest organizations where one of the members sometimes calls his brother who lives in France or whatever. Russia/Trump would only care about the first, and someone who's chiefly concerned about civil liberties in the US would only really care (or even be aware of, by definition) about the second.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I didn't like the patriot act and this seems like a loophole to doing patriot act things. It needs to apply to foreign protections and not citizens. Never thought id say it, but I have to agree with magas On this one. Most likely the magas don't appreciate the law spying on them and don't. care about the citizens.