Home | About | Donate

Democrats' Bewildering Decision to Hand President Trump More Surveillance Powers

Democrats' Bewildering Decision to Hand President Trump More Surveillance Powers

Ryan Cooper
Even the prospect of being blackmailed by the racist-in-chief can't crack their instinctive love of sweeping powers for secret spies. 
"Of course, Obama's bait-and-switch on telecom immunity was only the first step in his civil liberties record. As the Snowden documents showed, as president he embraced and in some ways expanded the Bush spying machine." (Photo: Getty)

Additional proof that we don’t have a Trump problem…we don’t have a GOP problem…we have a money in politics problem with Trump simply being the most recent example of incrreasingly catastrophic “leadership”.


Can’t we (finally) remove “Bewildering” from this headline?

Why are we expected to continually be shocked and confused by Democrats sharing the same aims and values as Republicans?



The Iraq disaster only proceeded with the consent and support of the full duopoly.


The Bush and Obama families can rest assured that the NSA is peeking up their daughters’ dresses. You reap what you sow…

1 Like

I agree. What I find frustrating, but not shocking, is the degree to which US mainstream media portrays the Parties as fundamentally distinct when, in reality, they both promote plutocrat friendly economics, back domestic surveillance, support environmentally unsustainable practices, and promote never ending US war worldwide.


Cooper sez: “That act laid the groundwork for an incomprehensible move last week by key Democrats…”

Inigo Montoya sez: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”


How many daze was it after 9-11 that the Patriot Act was voted for? Who was the one democrat to vote against it? Russ Feingold. There is your last democrat.

The only upside, if there is one, is that the NSA has been loosing staff since the election of 2016.


Let’s face it, we’re never going back. I know this because, for most of my lifetime, we’ve never gone back. The abuses of Nixon, Reagan, & Bush were never undone. Democrats only come in after the fact & normalize the abuses of Republicans, & in the case of Obama, re-brand & expand them.

If we ever get a Democratic President again, it will be another media demagogue, such as Oprah or Rachel Maddow, re-branding Trumpism as somehow ‘liberal.’

But in all likelihood, the degradation of USA will only accelerate. ‘Normal’ politics, Lewinksis, Willie Hortons, saxaphone jams on talk shows, bad impressions of MLK, these things are likely gone forever. After the Twitter in Chief, there is no going back to the kinder gentler idiocy of the 1980’s & 1990’s.

Sometime 35 or so years ago, USA became a TV show, and like most shows which overstay, we’ve jumped the shark. Once you do that, there’s no going back.


Maddow is by no means a “media demagogue,” but agree with your comment about Dems re-branding Repug abuses.

Rachel Maddow is the New Glenn Beck


Yes. Norman Solomon nails it with the 5-letter acronym, “MSDNC.” Thanks for the link.


Nonsense. Her ratings are high, maybe like Beck the Entertainer. Similarity ends there.
Often agree with Solomon, not on this.

Copy and paste the URL for this article in an email to yourself. Then forward the email to anyone who refers to the Democrats as the opposition party. You might also include an article about Dems voting for the GOP push for more military spending, but only if you’re sure they won’t reply back “USA! USA! USA! USA!”


Maddow was very credible way back 10 years ago when she was on AM radio, but once she went on MSDNC she quickly morphed into just another partisan Democrat cheerleader & shill. She’s convincing to the extent that she genuinely seems to enjoy the taste of Obama & Hillary’s boots.


I don’t get that, at all.

Here’s an article I wrote over on Firedoglake back in 2012 when I couldn’t take Maddow’s transformation into a DNC shill anymore. It explains how she is a shill for the DNC and a hypocrite. She’s even worse now with her Russiagate obsession.



Read it. Sounds credible. Doesn’t mean she’s wrong about Russia. We have a one-party country with two right wings.

1 Like

Did you mean my take on her in 2012 sounds credible or that her reporting on Jack Lew then sounds credible?

But she is wrong. There is no evidence that Russia did any of the things the Russiagaters accuse them of doing. This is all partisan posturing and she is nothing but an apparatchik of the establishment Democratic Party.

Oh, and I don’t need to prove the above. Those who want to assert there is evidence that Maddow has of Russiagate need to prove it. They’re the ones making the assertions. They need to prove it.


If Dear Misleader had a “wretched civil liberties legacy” (and he assuredly did)

They why the deuce is Dems’ duplicity either “bewildering” or “incomprehensible”?