The president is wrong: The NSA debate wouldn’t have happened without Snowden

I am a US citizen and my opinion matters as much as yours does.

It's not because political discussions aren't important, they are, but because I don't think this is a useful place to have them.

Counterarguments are self-censored, because any moderates calmly pointing out hyperboles tend to be downvoted by the more passionate participants in the discussion.

With the moderates bowing out, online voting systems quickly gel into two extremes, maybe a far right and a far left. That's not sustainable though, one side quickly gets bigger and wins. The losing side now is best off self-censoring, because why get downvoted when you can just comment on other topics? You eventually get a political monoculture representing one extreme, with no voices of opposition or moderation.*

No moderation system has yet promoted any useful political dialogue, because you can't convince the 5% of people who are most emotional to rate argument quality independently of personal beliefs.

That's why, in general, I'm opposed to the political pulpit of HN, even for positions I agree with. It's a bad medium for good discussions on issues of significant controversy.

* (What's admittedly tricky is sometimes a political monoculture is the correct result. If someone made arguments on behalf of the KKK, we don't need a full and fair debate providing a false equivalence between both sides. One side is just wrong. The problem is, with politics, everyone thinks they're arguing against someone else who is just wrong, just like the KKK. There's no objective way to determine whether or not both sides of a discussion hold merit worthy of a full debate, or whether we should just downvote one side out of the discussion before it leaves the gate.)

I just don't understand why people care that a drone launched the missile rather than an A-10 or an F-18?

That none of the above contribute to satisfying governance should come as no surprise. I am (naively?) surprised that his administration turned out to so enthusiastically continue and expand the Bush era policies. It gives some credence to the idea that the administrations themselves are not primary drivers of policy. Or that power enjoys power and will forevermore.

FWIW a prominent member of Northern California's ACLU told me she believes that prioritization of healthcare is what has sidelined civil rights in this administration. I do not find her explanation entirely satisfying.

What obama is saying is pure lie, but may appear truth for non-rigorous people

Snowden will be your Emmanuel Goldstein.

Another possibility would be: He has (or thinks he might have) a gun to his head and fears to meet a JFK-like fate (for himself or his family). In this case he should step down and denounce the degree of corruption of the system.

EDIT: ...because in case he's unable to have enough courage to correct the issues, stepping down and stating why would open up the possibility for the People to have a frank discussion about the system in place and to correct it for the next x decades to come. Because don't kid yourselves, the system itself is sick and it's not with cosmetics that it will be fixed and future corruption eliminated.

And also again in the chapter about notable African Americans. Let's not forget that getting elected president as the first African American is an achievement in itself, and one which I believe benefits the African American community, even if Obama's performance as a president doesn't live up to our initial hopes.

In time Obama will enter the history books for what he did, Snowden not so much. Maybe only to serve as a reminder that the Nobel peace prize lost its prestige.

Part of this is that Obama did a service to everybody on the planet (including Snowden) and Snowden serves a limited set or interests.

Iraq anyone?

And no I'm not saying Obama is doing hecka of a job.

But let's not forget the serious damage Bush did.

Not to mention all this NSA stuff too under Bush.

Clearly you didn't do much research on him before.

No one who researched candidates is happy when ANYONE gets elected.

I also think that Bush presented a much more reasonable face in the 2000 elections than we came to see. Compassionate conservatism was a line they pushed pretty hard that turned out to be a lie. And nobody expected Cheney to make Lord Voldemort look good by comparison. Rigged evidence for a war? Torture? And, of course, starting all these domestic surveillance programs that Obama is just continuing.

In 2000, the Republicans could still lay claim to the legacy of the Rockefeller Republicans, who were sane and reasonable stewards of the state, people actually interested in public service. W himself could claim that because Bush Senior was one of those reasonable Republicans.

So no, I don't think we all knew what we were getting with Bush. I'd say he turned out to be radically worse than people thought.

As evidence, take a look at the difference between a British newspaper's endorsements: in 2000, they were for Bush; in 2004, against: http://www.economist.com/node/12499760 And then compare with their 2009 retrospective on his leaving: http://www.economist.com/node/12931660

You know, somebody who has clearly stated goals, consistent platforms, and who actually is engaging in some of the political issues surrounding federalism.

Or, you know, screw it, let's vote for a guy because he got a bogus Peace Prize and is the first dude of some skin color in office--that's some solid bona fides there.

EDIT: And to be fair, I'm equally sick of the smug Republicans saying you get what you deserved; they laid a lot of the groundwork for this tomfoolery.

Now, guess what, he isn't following what he said. We have to guess that maybe what he said was a deliberate lie.

But it appears so far that he has 'read' the voters correctly: People will vote based on such promises but then, later, during the term of office, nearly completely forget about such promises. Uh, maybe Obama would have a better memory if more voters did!

One reason in the past to forget was that, for tens of millions of voters, it was a bit clumsy to clip the original statement from a newspaper, file it, and then find it later. And, even if did find it, tough to do anything with it, e.g., get enough publicity about it to cause the politician start to make good on the promise.

Of course now we have easy ways to find all such promises and publicize, if only on blogs and fora, that a promise is not being followed. But, apparently, still nearly all the voters are like they used to be and not really paying attention.

If a voter was wise, then during the election they likely assumed that nearly everything the candidates said were lies, only had two candidates to vote for, picked one, but never expected that the winner would honor the promises.

Net, really, especially now with the Internet, what government we get is up to the voters; when 60% of the voters are up on their hind legs yelling and screaming about the government tracking mud over the Fourth Amendment, then we will get some big changes quickly.

The good news is that all we need is the 60%. The bad news is that getting the 60% on a 'technical' or 'detailed' issue that does not yet directly affect the daily lives of the citizens is tough to do.

An old remark is that in a democracy the voters get the government they deserve.

So far, by making promises that are lies and then forgetting about the promises, Obama is just giving the voters what in effect they want. That's part of why he won election twice.

That text can be read as having the intention to neuter whistleblowers by providing a sanctioned escape valve as much as the interpretation you're giving it (that of general protection of whistleblowers).

If there is no fundamental structural change in the US, the Western World will remain a surveillance society and the current degree of democracy will be so much weakened that the term "democracy" will need to be "redefined".

That should be enough for everybody to understand even Mr Hope-and-Change is lying now.

The conclusion we are reaching is that representative democracy has very serious limits. Voting for the whole ideologic package does not allow my voice to be heard on stuff that: a) I really care about, or b) I really know inside and out. I'd prefer to relinquish my opinion on some stuff (agricultural policy, for example), and really be heard on other matters (there's absolutely no excuse for torture).

To more directly answer your question. There is no popular recall mechanism. The closest would be if there was enough public outcry to their congressional representatives that Congress began to move against the President. The bar is really, really high on this. It's not going to happen.

All of these things ended in '08, when he was elected, remember, just like he promised.