I'm pissed, but I don't feel duped. But that's simply because no serious presidential contender, save maybe Bernie Sanders, would have done otherwise.
Well, maybe Trump. But I believe his distrust of the intelligence community is only due to the fact that he thinks their findings regarding Russia undermine his legitimacy. Once that blows over, I expect he'll be more than happy having the authoritarian tools of the intelligence community, if he's smart enough to heal the rift.
What blows my mind a bit is that the rise of Trump should make it crystal clear just how dangerous these powers could be in the wrong hands. Obama should understand this more than anyone.
There were many people pointing out the dangers of consolidating so much power into the Presidency over the last few years but most of them were told to shut up with their paranoia conspiracies and racist rhetoric.
It also didn't help that Congress is more and more doing absolutely nothing of substance. The last 8 years have been nonstop obstructionism, and the next 4 appear to be headed the same way. (note: this is not to say I agree with overuse of executive powers, I do not.)
Not sure why you think next 4 years will be the same... I think the next 4 years will be markedly different due to Trump leadership and Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
We're hearing about Repeal & Replace in January, maybe as late as March and voting has already started to lay the framework to allow passage with 51 votes in the Senate.
Regardless Obama expanded executive power more than any president in history. So even if Trump doesn't plan to expand it he has plenty to work with already. I doubt he'll reverse it other than streamlining bloated intel agencies.
He's pledged to reverse all of Obama's "illegal" executive orders... and I assume that, being a Republican, he considers all of them to be illegal.
Trump may not do so, but the Republicans seem to want to dismantle Obama's legacy as thoroughly as possible, and blot him and the effect of his presidency from history like Akhenaten. There would probably be a political cost to pay if Trump didn't reverse it, just on principle.
It's probably the 'last few years' part that is what gets someone accused of racism. Pushing the boundaries of presidential power is not unique to Obama and indeed has no party affiliation.
> But that's simply because no serious presidential contender, save maybe Bernie Sanders, would have done otherwise.
I have my own issues and gripes with him, but I feel that Rand Paul was also one of the few who spoke sanity when it came to all these matters. In the only primary debate he actually participated in, when asked about interfering in Syria, his response was "we've done that how many times now - when has it worked out for us?" which, of course, the populist audience did not like.
I suspect that the intelligence apparatus is so influential across the administration that it's very hard for the President to rein it in.
Obama has had to make compromises on which issues he's going to push for. The disappointingly slow progress on Guantánamo Bay was an example of this... And that's a single prison camp with a relative handful of people in it. Digital surveillance is an out-of-control monster that all branches of intelligence just want to have more of, as evidenced by this latest decision on data sharing.
I doubt it. Trump has praised NSA surveillance in the past and has hinted that Snowden should be executed. Unless he was just saying such things to try to get the intelligence community on his side pre-election, he's in favor of authoritarian tools.
In 2008, before the election, Obama clearly showed he would increase the surveillance state when in office. In what way did he dupe you ? He already showed what he would do in office in July 2008. Claiming buyer's remorse now is too little too late. The above vote was why I decided not to vote for him.
I believe Obama's pick for VP was an obvious enough contradiction of his platform. Retaining Gates & Geitner solidified, IMO, "change" was not in the cards. Trump is an anomoly to the vetted & selected candidates we usually get to "elect", for better or worse. His cabinet picks hint at the latter, time(not the MSM) will tell.
1. Gay marriage/rights
1.5 Pulling out of Iraq (half an accomplishment, because the US had no business being there in the first place)
ACA is a dud, because it does nothing to address the artificially inflated costs.
So, in 8 years, we traded gay marriage for insane massive surveillance and a 'recovery' in job growth in the gig economy. Is that a fair exchange? Maybe, for the LGBT community. To be fair, he did inherit a giant pile of shit in 2008, but to think of him as some accomplished or revolutionary leader is a mistake.
In the end, he's just another centrist status quo "liberal".
Pulling out of Iraq (half an accomplishment, because the US had no business being there in the first place)
Not even a half accomplishment considering that there are still 5000 US soldiers in Iraq.
I was 20 in 2008, the first election I could vote in. I was reasonably politically aware at the time but still learning. One of my very basic litmus tests for being a decent, rational person is / was acceptance of gay marriage. I was quite surprised to find that Barack Obama, this liberal phenom who had become a household name overnight, was not publicly supporting such a cut-and-dry issue that would've been barely controversial among his constituency at the time. That was not the sole reason I didn't vote for him, but probably the jumping off point of being more skeptical of his candidacy. Of course, his change of opinion on gay marriage nearly mirrored opinion polls crossing the 50% mark, just like Clinton.
