"I think that would be fine, as far as I'm concerned. That would be fine," explained Trump.
**************
I like Donald, but Big Brother? Sorry Donald, myself, I don't think that's fine.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3366861/posts
You already posted this a few days ago and now you got it back on the front page. Got to take down Trump. Anyway. Anyhow. smh.
NO!!!! Like I’ve been saying over and over, folks better be careful in supporting Trump. He’s not the Conservative most believe him to be.
But only for your own good.
Did Hugh ask Trump if Alger Hiss was a Communist?
Of course. He’s a New Yorker, and there will be a slip of the tongue from time to time.
I heard that interview. Hewitt also tried to get him to bite on supporting a wealth tax again. Pretty sneaky for a third-rate radio announcer.
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Mmmm... Trumpbots arise!
Not while this regime is still occupying the WH!
This is negative aspect for Trump in my book. I think he still has enough good points for me to vote for him versus stay home if he gets the Republican nomination.
But as far as who gets the nomination, Cruz is looking better.
Well, shit, between this and Cruz supporting TPA, I guess I’ll stay home or vote for the regular elitist instead.
And this is the creepy side of Donald Trump. He likes power and control at any cost. Just like the rest.
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.
I’ve never really understood the resistance to active surveillance of foreign terrorist’s phone calls, nor even the surveillance of Americans provided there is a warrant of some kind— delayed notification of those warrants is something already done for organized crime. Even the bulk collection of metadata makes logical sense, especially for an ongoing terrorist attack. I used to work for Verizon Wireless, so I know the complicated process of retrieving this data for law enforcement purposes.
It is also a straight out lie that these records could be viewed without a warrant. Having billions of phone numbers on record is pretty useless unless you’re looking at a specific person.
I strongly disagree with this but you know what? He’s STILL not as bad as Bush.
Why is it that folks forget that testimony was given that bulk collection of data had not assisted in preventing a single terrorist attack?
Why do people not accept what the NSA has itself said, that the USA Freedom Act actually better provides them with the tools they need than did the Patriot Act?
No, Donald. Except for a couple of sections, it does nothing but interfere with the liberties of Americans.
He must think the people equate the Patriot Act with protection from attack. It’s really just another layer of bureaucracy and protects only the employees who work there.