You know, I think the danger in partisan labels is that we are labeling ourselves. When that happens, we shut down big pieces of our brains and morality.
But that's ok, because those other people did it in days gone by. Such hypocrites, they. What I do today is just a response, and I'm better than them.
Liberals have always spoken out against these programs. One example is Apple under Tim Cook's leadership actually getting into legal fights with the federal government.
And you know who exploited that episode for his own gain, called for a boycott of and criminal prosecution of Apple? Yeah, that guy.
Do you see the world so narrowly? Which "they" is it you speak of? The voices that have protested these programs are many and loud. The separate existence of partisans does not change that.
Again I ask: who are you talking about? Just because someone supports a candidate does not mean that they support all of what that candidate believes. Frequently, they even oppose those stances, and actively work to change them. Not everyone is a partisan.
If you're going to support the candidate no matter what, why should the candidate care what your opinions are? They have your vote already. Candidates will only care about your opinion on surveillance if you're willing to deny them your vote over the issue.
I suspect that it is this (somewhat cynical) line of thinking that cost Hillary the election. Successful politics is about coalition building. Maintaining and expanding those coalitions means following through on those promises.
I voted for Clinton. I would have been very concerned by mass surveillance still if she were President-elect now, and I would have advocated major reforms or removal of domestic surveillance programs just the same. Stop making things so black and white. Mass domestic surveillance is bad, whoever is doing it.
But that's ok, because those other people did it in days gone by. Such hypocrites, they. What I do today is just a response, and I'm better than them.