The bureaucrats regularly present scary information to the politicians to justify their actions and powers. The juiciest bits of intelligence are intentionally selected for escalation up the chain, with many being presented ASAP at the highest levels (SECDEF, President) and/or retained for later demonstration to oversight authorities (FISA court, Congressional committees). While much of "raw" intelligence is not reliable, the agencies can curate the best (most believable/most sensational/most verified) intelligence reports over time.

Given recent events in the Middle East and the fact that both parties' senior politicians mostly lean the same way in terms of which sides they support, this result is unsurprising if disappointing.

Because politicians want power and control over the citizens. They might use it for different things, but power is power.

I'm pretty damn sure you have it backwards. The intelligence crapmunity wants power, and politicians are merely the means to an end.

See what happens when a politician of any stature dares to defy them.

Chuck Schumer: "Six ways from Sunday"

If anything happens any politician who voted no can be accused of being responsible for “missing the next 9/11” or being “soft on terror.”

If nothing happens most people don’t understand or care either way.

horseshoe theory. D+R are not so different. D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties

> D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties

I don't think this is accurate. Maybe on healthcare and welfare, sure. But on many social issues, the Democrats are much further to the left than the European left. On issues such as abortion, gender/sexuality, migration, and race, the Democrats are more extreme compared to Labour in the UK, SPD in Germany, and the PSOE in Spain. Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats.

It's a boring take from more than 30 years ago that was kinda true in the Regan years when the dominant voting groups could pretend that elected officials and government didn't actually matter because they all voted similarly and discrimination against groups that disagreed had been publicly accepted for decades. Historical electoral maps were not usually competitive at all like they are now.

The both parties are the same is such a lazy take, except in super limited circumstances like this naked power grab in the article. Both are going to use it in wildly different ways

>Even the left in France isn't as socially extremist as the Democrats.

Depends which left which you are talking about. LFI is certainly on that level in their way, PS/Place Publique are not(given that "printemps républicain" was part of what killed popular support for the party).

I mean, those countries have other further left parties with held seats in their legislatures up to and including outright explicit communist parties.

Those parties you listed are known for being center to center left in Europe, sometimes explicitly escuing the left as UK Labour and SPD have done.

Excpet PSOE which is farther left than the Democrats, having all of the identity politics of the Democratic party while being explicitly and empathetically pro union. Heads would have rolled if PSOE had broken the rail workers strike that like Biden did. The also tried to legalize abortion in the Spanish constitution in the 1970s, and haven't wavered on their view of abortion since. They passed same sex marriage when they got their first chance to (and before the US did), and used the same opportunity to expand transgender rights.

For migration, sure, but it is very related to the history of the US (nearly everyone is a relatively recent immigrant so it feels wrong to refuse that others come in). For abortion and gender this is not correct though. It is not as hot a topic but positions are not that different between European left and democrats. There is also a very wide scale of opinions inside the Democrat party itself. Some people just focus on the very left of the party but plenty of democrats are much more similar to Macron than the French left when it comes to social issues.

Many politicians just like social issues because they can win supporters without doing anything aside giving empty promises or arbitrary gestures.

Left and right are different in different countries. In the US, the Republicans are generally pro-building (see where new homes and factories are being built). But in the UK, the left party (Labour) is the one pushing for less onerous planning.

Both sides are mostly rich or put there by the rich. A few populist reps get outsized airtime, but that isn’t the majority of people running the show.

There are a lot more similarities between "both sides" than that. They make a big show out of arguing over a small number of things they disagree on. But for many important things, they don't significantly differ.

The two parties do not significantly differ on indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil.

The two parties do not significantly differ on domestic spying, dragnet-style data collection and warrantless wiretapping.

The two parties do not significantly differ on allowing extra-judicial targeted killings.

The two parties do not significantly differ on the use of unmanned drones, either for combat or domestic surveillance.

The two parties both support pre-emptive "cyber" war and non-defensive hacking.

The two parties do not significantly differ on their support for continuing the War On Terror.

The two parties both support maintaining US military bases around the world.

The two parties do not significantly differ on favoring Keynesian economics.

The two parties support delegating monetary policy decisions to the Federal Reserve, including support for quantitative easing.

The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of earmarks and pork barrel spending.

Neither of the two parties have (recently) proposed plans for balancing the budget.

Neither of the two parties plans to significantly cut defense spending.

The two parties both favor taxpayer-funded foreign aid.

The two parties are largely backed by the same corporate sponsors and special interest groups, with a few key differences.

The two parties both backed TARP and in general favor bailing out companies too big to fail.

The two parties do not significantly differ on their general support of "economic stimulus" as a tool to prop up the economy.

The two parties do not significantly differ on their support for and allegiance to Israel.

The two parties both favor and continue sanctions on Iran.

The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of super PAC funding and their support of unlimited spending from corporations and special interest groups.

The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of gerrymandering to gain political advantage.

The two parties oppose any measures that would strengthen the viability of a third party.

emergent behavior from a self-interested system, which doesn't necessarily preclude collusion, directly or less so.

the best capitalist simply had their competition shot.

> The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of earmarks and pork barrel spending.

This is not true; the Republicans strongly oppose them and have repeatedly tried to abolish them (and were temporarily successful at one point).

> Neither of the two parties have (recently) proposed plans for balancing the budget.

This isn't true. Both parties have recently proposed plans for balancing the budget; Biden proposed plans to balance it by raising taxes and instituting a wealth tax just last year, and Republicans have put forward various entitlement reform proposals to balance the budget.

> The two parties both favor and continue sanctions on Iran.

Obama ended sanctions on Iran with the nuclear deal before Trump reinstated them; Republicans blocked Senate ratification of the deal, allowing him to do that and ensuring the Iranians wouldn't trust future entreaties from the US. Claiming the two parties are the same on this is odd.

> The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of super PAC funding and their support of unlimited spending from corporations and special interest groups.

Dems support and have repeatedly attempted to pass an anti-Citizens United amendment.

> The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of gerrymandering to gain political advantage.

Dems repeatedly tried to pass a bill banning gerrymandering federally when they controlled the House in 2021.

I'm no expert but for these 5 at least, I am aware of significant and specific interparty differences.

Many of these points are just common sense. Does America really need a major party that's insane on one of the important issues?

I guarantee you that whichever points you think are "common sense" on this list, there's millions of people in this country who will disagree with you on every single one of them.

There are also millions of people who think that Earth's flat.

So then be more specific: whose "common sense" do you have in mind?

People who are professionals in international relations, monetary policy, administering a country and other areas that these statements relate to.

Given the present state of international relations, monetary policy, or the country in general, I'm no longer sure such people even exist. There are certainly many people who would like the proles to think so, and to vote them into power on that basis. But it doesn't appear to be translating to policies that are actually good for most of us, somehow.

Minor correction

> D in US is more right than other countries' left leaning parties

D in US is more right than other countries' right leaning parties

Because it gives them more power, and nobody cares to organize or do anything about it in terms of voting out said politicians.

I would imagine because the IC already uses those same surveillance powers to get dirt on enough politicians to make sure this happens.

They had to add a rule about not using it to spy on Congress. That tells you all you need to know about how often fisa is abused.

This may turn out to be the most true thing ever uttered on the internet.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

They're ultimately the same, the partisanship is mostly a farce as they both know that they're the only realistic options, so as long as neither side goes out of its way to seriously be better than the other, they can both enjoy the perks of being in power eventually, and therefore increased power is always good from their pov as regardless of party, they'll eventually have access to that power too.

> the partisanship is mostly a farce

This was noticeably on display for me in 2020 right after it was determined that Biden had won the election. Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator, was caught on video in the Senate chamber warmly congratulating and hugging Kamala Harris, a D senator and VP-elect. It was as if they both knew Graham's hyper-partisan antics during the preceding months before the vote was all just an act - a part of the game. I'd bet that he secretly voted for Biden/Harris as well and will do so again.

This is basic human empathy from a very small group of insiders. I mean, this is their job. Do you think they all go around work being dicks to each other all day every day?

Besides, it cost him nothing.

Their job is to represent us, supposedly. And they keep trying to whip their own supporters into frenzy against each other (quite successfully, I should note - so much so that it's already getting violent at times). The fact that the people doing so are themselves chum buddies tells volumes.

I suspect in the incentives, the downside risk weighs much heavier for these people. If they block surveillance powers and another 9/11 happened they'd be dragged over the coals, whereas approving them is pretty risk free.

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...

If that were true, Trump would have been carried out of Helsinki feet-first.

why, what was/happened in Helsinki?

Trump announced that he believed Putin over his own intelligence.

But then there was the time Biden installed Hunter on the White House staff and ordered that he be given a security clearance, despite dozens of discrepancies, undisclosed foreign contacts, and other red flags on the paperwork. Oh, wait, no, that was Trump, too.

The only person willing to take them on is Trump. Look at all of the fake cases and mainstream media attacking that followed. I don't think anyone can stop them now. When America is replaced as a world power that day will come.

You sound as sane as the guy that self immolated yesterday.

One way some people suggest is at least one of the 3-letter intelligence communities will send/drop CP on their computer or phone if that congressmen doesn’t vote their way. If that’s even partially true, then it makes them more powerful than all of the elected bodies.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ThIfbGXWTxBITTsj18aBw

I think you have things a bit backwards. Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions.

> The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon's usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

> Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions.

What restrictions are you talking about? Constitutional warrant requirement was sidestepped using this law and you are still cheering here.

Well, before FISA, constitutional warrant requirements were not sidestepped, they were simply ignored. So now we're acknowledging that the constitutional requirements are still there, but now we use this weird dodge to get around it. So is that better or worse?

Are you really asking if being unconstitutional is worse than being codified and legal?

I’m not the one here cheering for demise of constitutional republic…

Neither am I cheering for it. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am seriously asking whether being flat-out unconstitutional is worse than building a (legislated and approved) backdoor around the constitution, yes.

I mean, better than both would be to just follow the constitution, but that wasn't the question.

Please note that at no point I said that you specifically cheered, so no need to project. It’s a threaded topic.

As you noticed, following constitution is apparently not an option here. Being unconstitutional and ignored, there was at least some hope for improvement, but codification gave us a clear answer that elected representatives are, at best, only selectively interested in supporting constitution.

Well, you are asserting a binary choice here which is questionable and implies that unless we grant spooks legal OK for some violations of the constitution they are free to ignore the entire matter. If a government agency is acting in violation of constitution then there are legal and constitutional remedies to make sure the said agencies act according to the law of the land.

Unfortunately, that appears to be America these days. Do something illegal, and then write a law to legalize the illegal behavior.

Corruption of our intelligence agencies to the point they've been weaponized against our own elected officials.

Have there ever been a point where our law enforcement and intelligence agencies haven't been weaponized by our politicians against their opposition? FBI under Hoover, COINTELPRO, Watergate...

I would guess that Democratic and Republican politicians want to give more power to the USA government because they are the USA government.

The F in FISA stands for foreign.