Slashdot Mirror
What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?
An anonymous reader writes: Sen. Rand Paul held up a vote on the Fast Track Authority for an eleven hour dissertation on the flaws of: the Patriot Act, the replacement the USA Freedom Act, bulk data collection including credit card purchases, the DEA and IRS's use of NSA intel. for "parallel construction", warrant-less GPS bugs on vehicles, as well as the important distinction of a general warrant versus a specific one. "There is a general veil of suspicion that is placed on every American now. Every American is somehow said to be under suspicion because we are collecting the records of every American," Paul said. The questions is what did the "filibuster" really accomplish? The speeches caused a delay in Senate business but it's unclear what larger effect, if any, that will have.
Public relations... What was everybody expecting?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What a stupid article intended just to bash Rand Paul. It brought attention to a matter that deserves attention. That's enough to warrant the fillibuster.
While I applaud Paul, Wyden, and the other Senators who have pledged to do everything in their power to block the spying-allowed version of this renewal; Sen. Paul's "filibuster" was pure PR stunt for his presidential campaign. It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The senior senators... both republicans and democrats want this legislation.
It is an issue generally in congress at this point. Most of the long term senators and congressman opportunistic career politicians that are more interested in playing the game than doing a good job.
So for pretty much everyone that has been there for a long time... It is all a game. A game they play with our money, our government, our lives... and the people that reflexively vote for their party indifferent to whether the incumbent is a piece of shit... you're the problem.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Rand Paul, whether you agree with his politics or not, is the only one with the guts to stand up against the Patriot Act. I remember lots of Democrat outrage when it first came to be. But now that the Dems are running the show they kind of like having it. Makes life easier for the government if they can just collect data on everyone rather than having to go through the courts for warrants and other such inconveniences.
The fallacy, of course, is that the Patriot Act somehow makes us safer than we would be otherwise. It might be true if it were being administered by someone competent rather than these bureaucratic morons that can't get out of their own way. Every failure is met by cries for more money.
Obama, when he was a senator, was against the Patriot Act:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
He warned of possible abuses of power. But now that he is president he has changed his tune. Abuse of powers indeed.
GO RAND :)
Is this some dialect of BASIC?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
While I'm proud of my Senator (Wyden) and Paul for attempting to shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act", they accomplished very little. A symbolic gesture for the Congressional records at most.
They accomplished: shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act"
This has to do with knowledge.
Consider the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, but neither of us know that the other also thinks its bad. In this case we are effectively loners even though we are not really alone.
Now the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, and I know that you know that something is bad, and you know that I know that something is bad. In this case we are not loners by any measure.
You can't change things when you are a loner.
"His name was James Damore."
We're talking about it. And a politician in favor of a little more freedom has a little more visibility. That's enough.
he'll be gone soon enough
The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?
The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.
So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This was a fake filibuster ..
If he had been serious, he could have lodged a nominal filibuster (e.g say "I am speaking" that could only be overridden with a majority vote of the senate.
Since his party controls the senate, and he basically just did a political stunt, I question if he is actually against the Patriot Act, or if he was just playing political theater for his doomed presidential campaign.
While I applaud Paul, Wyden, and the other Senators who have pledged to do everything in their power to block the spying-allowed version of this renewal; Sen. Paul's "filibuster" was pure PR stunt for his presidential campaign. It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.
Populism works by incentivizing politicians to do PR stunts drawing attention to issues people care about. This PR Stunt is much more important than 90% of Senate Business anyway.
... public.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Looks like Logo to me - instructs the turtle to move in the most recent direction of a length specified by a random natural number.
Yes. Congress is typically quite industrious at violating the Constitution and destroying civil rights.
I wish the partisans would STFU and realize this is a civil rights issue, not a partisan issue, for *everyone* regardless of political party, ideology, and/or religion (or lack thereof).
For those kool-ade drinkers defending the administration regarding domestic spying, do you want your political enemies to have this power to wield when they inevitably gain office?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Whether you like Rand Paul or not, it was a filibuster. Putting quotes around it like that is a cheap shot designed to attack someone you don't like. It's factually inaccurate and it makes the item nothing but a hit piece on Paul.
george w bush signed a pretty significant environmental protection bill that significantly reduces the amount of pollution from diesel locomotives
he did it because it generated windfall profits for GE who was the only company poised to sell the new locomotives
sometimes good things happen for bad reasons
we do care about those things
but when they come out of the mouth of a guy who says:
"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."
then you really have to come to the conclusion that he says what he says in order to get press exposure, because clearly his remarks have no ground in "integrity" or "honesty" or anything like that
There is currently a federal court ruling against the Patriot Act data gathering with a deadline for compliance that is days away. The Senate is desperately trying to get out of town for another vacation so the senators were planning to just rubber-stamp a fix (re-wording it but not actually changing it) and then fly home. Unfortunately for those lazy senators, the court's deadline would hit during their vacation and the NSA has notified the senate that it will have to shut down the data vacuum very soon to assure compliance unless a bill is quickly passed making it legal beyond the court deadline. By doing what he did, Rand Paul threw a mini monkey wrench into the plans to renew the act in the dead of night when the public was not looking... now people are looking AND he consumed precious hours of floor time that Reid (D-NV) and McConnel (R-KY) were planning on using.
There is now not enough time to ram-through a full-renewal of the Patriot Act, because the House won't support that and there's not enough time for the usual arm-twisting. There may also now not be enough hours on the senate calendar for the slightly-better House fix (which many senators oppose but might be willing to grudgingly accept). Probable result: short-term "fix" that keeps Patriot Act alive for 2 or 3 months, during which the public can pester their representatives followed by more permanent "fix" that leaves data in the hands of the TELCOs and requires feds to get a warrant to get at the data (this is closer to the House Republican idea).
If there is ANY reduction in the mass-surveillance, it will trace back directly to this quasi-fillibuster. ANY senator who did not take part in this and yet claims to oppose all the spying is just lying - THOSE senators wanted the whole thing renewed without any public fuss.
Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are from different parts of the GOP. They have worked together many times when their interests overlapped and their principles lined-up. They have both helped each other on fillibusters even when they did not fully agree on the substance.
Rand is a Libertarian-leaning Republican.
Ted is a TEA Party-leaning Republican.
On this one, Rand was in total opposition to the Patriot Act, while Ted supports some of it. They both have expressed concerns about the Constitutionality of aspects of it and Ted is a very experienced Lawyer who has both worked at the Supreme Court and successfully argued cases there (i.e. his concerns are serious, rather than poll-tested, advisor-supplied talking points).