Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 01:38 PM Oct 2013

Who Buys the Spies? The Hidden Corporate Cash Behind America’s Out-of-Control National Surveillance




...In sharp contrast to endlessly repeated claims that big business was deeply suspicious of the President, our statistical results show that a large and powerful bloc of  “industries of the future” – telecommunications, high tech, computers, and software – showed essentially equal or higher percentages of support for the President in 2012 than they did for Romney.

...But the point that our findings document is perhaps most instructive of all. Many of the firms and industries at the heart of this Orwellian creation have strong ties to the Democrats. Bush and Cheney may have invented it, but national Democratic leaders are full-fledged players in this 21st century National Surveillance State and the interest group pressures that now help to sustain its defenders in Washington work just as powerfully on Democrats as on Republicans.

...But the really significant findings emerge when you look at particular industries. Six industries where the President ran especially strongly attracted our attention: telecoms, software, web manufacturing, electronics, and computers, plus the defense industry. His support in these industries ran far above his average levels of support either for business as a whole or the rest of big business. In fact, it equaled or exceeded the backing these firms afforded Romney.

...It is a sobering conclusion. At the time President Obama took office, many of his supporters expected a radical change in course on national security policy. This did not happen. For sure, limitations on some of the worst excesses were put in place, but there was no broad reversal. The secret programs of surveillance expanded and the other policies discussed above, on indefinite detention, treatment of whistleblowers, and executive prerogatives relative to Congress stayed in place or broke even more radically with tradition.

Full Article from published - Sunday, 27 October 2013 13:43
http://truth-out.org/news/item/19647-who-buys-the-spies-the-hidden-corporate-cash-behind-americas-out-of-control-national-surveillance-state
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who Buys the Spies? The Hidden Corporate Cash Behind America’s Out-of-Control National Surveillance (Original Post) Indi Guy Oct 2013 OP
"web manufacturing" he has the spider vote down apparently. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #1
These industries... Indi Guy Oct 2013 #2
Not a coincidence, he was put in charge of that surveillance is what happened. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #3
C'mon man. Indi Guy Oct 2013 #4
K&R nt Zorra Oct 2013 #5
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
1. "web manufacturing" he has the spider vote down apparently.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 01:42 PM
Oct 2013

This is a doltish piece of half-baked nonsense. Democrats attract support from tech/innovation/research firms because the anti-science fundyclowns in the Republican party scare the bejesus out of those industries. No need for inane conspiracy theories to explain why they donate to the the pro-science party, or to explain why DiFi et al are pro-national security state for that matter.

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
2. These industries...
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 01:51 PM
Oct 2013

...and from the article, "including the defense industry" do plenty of intimidating of their own on the hill.

Is it only a coincidence that this president turned his back on his campaign promises vis vi government surveillance?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
3. Not a coincidence, he was put in charge of that surveillance is what happened.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 01:57 PM
Oct 2013

Being responsible for running the surveillance gives them a different agenda than they had as a candidate.

Indi Guy

(3,992 posts)
4. C'mon man.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 03:16 PM
Oct 2013

That's one of the most spurious arguments for backtracking that I've ever heard (I give you credit for originality though; and at least you didn't deny that he broke his campaign pledge).

So you're saying that it's OK to make a promise in a campaign, and then do the oposite once you're in charge -- because you're in charge. That's your argument? Am I missing anything here?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who Buys the Spies? The H...