General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPres. Jimmy Carter is so right!
Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2018, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)
*disclaimer....this is a quote from 2013, it fits well at this time however.
triron
(22,007 posts)LakeArenal
(28,821 posts)Every repuke is complicit.
calimary
(81,323 posts)and you chose to do nothing, you are indeed complicit.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,625 posts)I wouldn't want to be responsible for spreading a fake meme...
Heartstrings
(7,349 posts)"The Political Resistance Against Donald Trump" on Facebook. Very reliable and have never had an issue with authenticity.....
femmedem
(8,203 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Sad but True!
femmedem
(8,203 posts)Folks, be careful when you see quotes with no link and no date. This has nothing to do with Trump.
https://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2013-09-06/letters-at-3am-the-curious-case-of-the-missing-quotation/
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)That's when the Patriot Act was passed...spying w/o court oversight was allowed.
Or during the Trump admin? Since we have a Russian agent in the W.H. and a complicit Republican base in Congress.
shanny
(6,709 posts)uncomfortable, isn't it?
Sid
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The U S kept the Patriot Act in large part, but the part that allowed surveillance without court order was repealed and went back to the way it was before the Patriot Act...have to get a court order BEFORE surveilling.
And let's not forget: The Congress was Republican part of the time under Obama. Not so w/Bush Admin. Not that that matters.
You didn't answer the question: Why didn't Carter post the criticism during the Bush Administration, when the Patriot Act (surveillance by the govt w/o court order) was passed.
shanny
(6,709 posts)"The law was changed under Obama." In 2015. If you want to review what changed and what didn't, here's a link.
https://lifehacker.com/the-patriot-act-is-changing-heres-what-that-means-for-1708418382
This was done under a Republican House and Senate; it is not as if Obama changed it all by himself. In fact, the Act could have been changed or at least challenged as early as 2006, when Democrats assumed control over both the House and Senate. I would like to point out, however, that surveillance and abuses thereof continued for years under President Obama and a Democratic Congress, and then a Republican Congress...until Edward Snowden exposed all that bullshit in early June 2013.
President Carter's tweet was in direct response to that.
So in answer to your question, although I am not qualified to speak for President Carter (but I thank you for the promotion), I would say that Carter did not speak up earlier because--as someone no longer in the loop--he didn't know about the extent of the abuses.
And now I'll ask you a question: did Obama?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)At that time the issue was that the AT&T billing detail records had been used - meaning that the government knew exactly who called whom and how long they spoke. James Risen in the NYT put out a story that he had before the elction in 2004, but which the NYT sat on not to influence the election.
Here is - Chris Dodd, who led a filibuster - https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2007/12/fisa-reform-bill-tabledin-part-due-to-eyes-of-the-internet/
shanny
(6,709 posts)and I am grateful for it. Point is, it was hardly universal, even many years after the panic of 9/11.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Like I tell the Republicans when they pull Hillary and Obama out of the hat, when faced with a difficult question and try to direct the inquiry to an irrelevant area, that's not the question at hand.
Carter made the critical statement. It is Carter that is the subject. Not Obama or Bush or Trump or Bozo the Clown.
So the question is...why didn't Carter criticize the Bush Administration. Of course he knew what the Patriot Act was about. Everyone knew. There were court challenges and hearings in Congress on it. And again when it was reauthorized. So yes, Carter would have known.
Yet he made a critical statement in Obama's administration, AFTER unchecked surveillance was reigned in. Why is that?
shanny
(6,709 posts)B) why ask me, or anyone, other than President Carter?
Do you think it's a plot?
DAMANgoldberg
(1,278 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Demsrule86
(68,593 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)
That was during the Obama administration...I simply see him going after Democrats quit often. He is a good man and has made the world a better place after his presidency for sure...but not much love for Democrats.
Updated... had a typo that changed the entire meaning of my post! Sorry.
shanny
(6,709 posts)Demsrule86
(68,593 posts)I dislike some of his comments from time to time but think in general he is a good man. I will update.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Because the Comey thing, while hitting the odds, didn't remove the fact that 12 out of 13 polls had her winning, and all indications were that she had it in the bag.
Which was why everyone was surprised. If the October surprise had done that much damage, there wouldn't have been the shock over the Trump win.
But it's easier to blame one guy than a conspiracy that involved the internet, the opposing party, and involvement in hacking actual election systems in certain districts in certain states. Much easier to blame "that guy over there." But the polls showed that while there was an effect, there wasn't much of one, as a result of Comey. I think maybe the public had heard about the emails so much that they weren't paying attention much, anymore.
There are also reasons that a campaign would not to believe it was Russia using social media. They'd have to admit that maybe they didn't utilize social media enough. I don't know if that would have made a difference. Maybe, maybe not. Still, it's easier to blame the one guy whose actions you had no control over. Human nature, possibly.
She was expected to win. We were all shocked when Trump won. Many, including myself, believe that she DID win, in fact.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,564 posts)And tragic. Maybe catastrophic.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)along with his oligarchy comments.. wise man.
Demsrule86
(68,593 posts)willing to help...made in March of this years. So a Democratic President endangers our democracy based on the comment in the OP as it was what 2013 when this was said...just before a midterm where we lost the Senate. Pres. Obama could have used some support and the benefit of the doubt.
"But my own preference would be that he not be impeached, but that he be able to serve out his term, because I think he wants to do a good job. And I'm willing to help him, if I can help him, and give him the benefit of the doubt."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-carter-my-preference-would-be-that-trump-not-be-impeached/
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)and the other part - like he said, "personal preference" - maybe he feels differently now.. but I am not here to speak for Prez Carter.. just on a specific quote.
bdamomma
(63,883 posts)2013 the writing was on the wall so to speak.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Even someone like Boehner stated that the Republican party is taking a nap. That it's now Trump's party. It's become the cult of Trump. I remember when he said that he could shoot someone down 5th Ave. and his followers would still vote for him. One time that he actually told the truth. No matter what this repugnant man does and says, his base is still with him.
I don't get it.