Posted on 12/04/2015 12:48:05 PM PST by VinL
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would be in favor of restoring the PATRIOT Act.
Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt Show on Tuesday, Trump said, "When you have the world looking at us and would like to destroy us as quickly as possible, I err on the side of security."
Hewitt asked Trump to comment on the }big debate between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. On meta-data collection, Ted Cruz is glad that the NSA got out of it, Marco Rubio wants it back. What's Donald Trump think?"
"Well, I tend to err on the side of security, I must tell you," explained Trump. "I've been there for longer than you would think. But you know when you have people that are beheading our .. if you're a Christian, and frankly for lots of other reasons ..when you have the world looking at us and would like to destroy us as quickly as possible, I err on the side of security. And so that's the way it is. That's the way I've been, and some people like that frankly, and some people don’t like that."
"I'm not just saying that you know since Paris, I’m saying for quite some time. I assume when I pick up my telephone, people are listening to my conversations anyway, if you what to know the truth," said Trump. “It's pretty sad commentary, but I err on the side of security.â€
Hewitt followed up, “So you would be in favor of restoring the Patriot Act?â€
"I think that would be fine, as far as I'm concerned. That would be fine," explained Trump.
Trump is not an anything. His knowledge of anything but business is thousands of miles wide and a mm deep.
You want government to spy on you?! NO!
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
But over here an article posted not too long before this one, we see Cruz flip...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3368341/posts
That’s why he posted this story again to bury the Cruz flip.
Hey DJ, how you doing?
I took patriot08’s post as sarcasm, but who knows.
They can listen to my conversations. Ive nothing to hide. We live in dangerous times. If this helps keep us safe..so be it.
I agree. Go Ted!!!!
You also responded to the same quote that you posted 3 days ago like its some sort of surprise.
****************
I wasn’t just surprised, I was shocked! But, it wasn’t exactly clear from that article what Donald “was fine” with.
Now, I read the full transcript which indicates that Donald was fine with the “Patriot Act.”
Are you fine with the Patriot Act?
Are you serious????
I gave you the benefit of the doubt but alas, I've been fooled.
And you call youself a patriot??
Spit!!
I’m fine. And her post isn’t sarcasm.
Not in this Constitutional Republic. We value freedom here.
If creeping tyranny all right with you, that's your problem. Don't speak for the rest of us.
Leftists love ignorance. It's so easy to manipulate.
I see that now....just damn.
U.S. intelligence agencies testified to Congress that the USA Freedom Act gives them necessary new tools to identify and track the bad guys more effectively than currently possible without any need for bulk collection of telephone metadata held by the NSA on every law abiding American citizen.
If any think that Trump and Rubio can be defended on this issue, I ask my fellow FReepers to read the last sentence again and let it sink in.
Given the facts of the new law, providing more effective surveillance of bad guys with less violation of our right to privacy, what possible justification does a candidate have to support a gross invasion of privacy on this scale against every U.S. citizen? "Err on the side of security" is an invalid argument because it directly contradicts the conclusion drawn by our intelligence agencies that the USA Freedom Act better protects American citizens.
It would appear to me there are only two logical explanations for taking this indefensible position, either 1) the candidate lacks the necessary interest to become informed on the facts of a law vital to civil liberties and national security, or much worse 2) the candidate does not recognize a foundational principle set forth in the U.S. Constitution defining the relationship between citizen and government which places the people over their government. If the people have no right to privacy, the government rules over the people. The first explanation is inexcusable laziness in a campaign, while the second explanation is terrifying if true about a person seeking to be President of the United States.
On a slippery slope beginning at the top with all freedoms protected by the Constitution and descending down to big government tyranny totally controlling our lives, first Rubio, and now Mr. Trump reveal they are perfectly willing to keep the frame of discussion nearer tyranny (pushing the Overton Window down the slope) without reasonable justification from experts in our intelligence agencies.
Therefore, Trump and Rubio are both comfortable exerting overreach of power not vested in the Executive Branch by the Constitution. These are not candidates who can be expected as the next President to repudiate completely the dangerous precedent of extra-Constitutional executive lawlessness set by Obama and his administration.
The stance of Rubio and Trump on NSA domestic spying makes clear that past attempts to nullify parts of our foundational law are likely to be reinforced in some part through similar actions by either of these men if elected President.
If Democrat and Republican administrations in consecutive years violate the Constitution so egregiously, there will be no going back and the Republic as described in the U.S. Constitution will cease to exist. The election in 2016 is our last chance.
No. Our calls to terrists. Turned out they were actually listening to us.
Jan 3, 2014 A secretive U.S. spy court has ruled again that the National Security Agency can keep collecting every American's telephone records every day
Young poster.
My problems with the patriot act are the same as they’ve always been. I want to know that it will never be used against me unless I’m willfully engaging islamic terrorists and I want to know that they won’t be ever expanding into domestic crimes.
If I’m actively engaging with terrorists there should be no problem getting a warrant for phone taps etc. We’ve already got plenty of domestic law enforcement to deal with domestic crimes.
I’m also concerned that our domestic spying hasn’t been used against our lawmakers to “encourage” them to toe the line.
As with many issues, I don’t think Donald has given it thorough consideration.
Well said and well worth pondering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.