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.
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."
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
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.
Looks like Logo to me - instructs the turtle to move in the most recent direction of a length specified by a random natural number.
It was never feasible for him to block the bill, so I don't see why details of, e.g, when he did it would be important. The purpose was to raise awareness and I've seen quite a bit of coverage including major political sites like DrudgeReport so I would say whatever his notions were they worked out rather well. If it is a call to the masses then it makes sense to give them time to digest and react (hopefully with a call to their representatives) before the actual bill.
As is, are we under the impression that once in office Rand Paul will abandon the cause? Because if not, as the chief executive he would certain have the ability to direct these agencies differently. Personally, this convinces me he would be committed to doing so.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
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.
Here is why:
One: He is forcing the cloture vote on this to be next week, there is not time (its complicated) for the cloture vote to happen before the NSA must shut down the program.
Other business, like the pending trade agreement will have to be dealt with to come back to the NSA.
So for at least one weekend, there will be no NSA spying, and they will have to get it back on line if and when it is reauthorized. Inertia is our friend, if it is down, there will be pressure to keep it down.
Two: He also prevented it from passing cloture by unanimous consent, which is really silence. The chair asks a variation of "Without objection, so ordered" and if everyone is silent, it passes. There are no up/down votes, so no up/down vote is recorded
Now people are going to vote yea or nay, and THAT will be on the record for the next election.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Two: He also prevented it from passing cloture by unanimous consent, which is really silence. The chair asks a variation of "Without objection, so ordered" and if everyone is silent, it passes. There are no up/down votes, so no up/down vote is recorded
Now people are going to vote yea or nay, and THAT will be on the record for the next election.
Forcing the jackasses to go on the record as to whether or not they support the bill, rather than allowing them plausible deniability on whether or not they would have voted for it is actually a fantastic thing, particularly after the John Oliver interview of Edward Snowden, which basically makes it pretty obvious that the government gets to see you dick/boob picks if the bill is passed.
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.
Rand says whatever he needs to in order to appeal to the current audience.
He is a serial panderer, even for a politician.
He has flipflopped so many times...
Cruz isn't much better (actually he's not; he's worse, and a tool)
But on to Rand and why he is NOT the libertarian hero you think he is:
Rand Paul’s Incoherent Foreign Policy Mess :
To Time magazine he roughly declares that if he were in charge he wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin “get away with it” and on the same day he tells Brietbart.com that now is not the time for chest beating and weirdly seems to call out John McCain as a chicken hawk. It’s all very confusing.
Rand Paul, serial panderer: 5 major flip-flops that reveal his brazen hypocrisy:
Should predator drones be used against American citizens?
During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:
“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat.
“I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”
One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”
Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:
“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”
Should we continue to spend money on aid to Israel?
In March 2011, he proposed eliminating all aid to Israel:
“While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea.”
Three years later, he denied ever proposing such a plan:
“I haven’t really proposed (phasing out aid to Israel) in the past.”
Should birth control be banned?
Small-government libertarian Rand Paul introduced a so-called Personhood Amendment, which is in reality a back-door antiabortion, anti-contraception bill.
In 2013, Paul introduced the personhood amendment that would not only have banned abortions but also would have in effect banned many forms of birth control, including some forms of the pill. Paul also supported the Blunt Amend
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I guess I must not be part of your political persuasion then, because damn. A lot of that list makes him look bad, but some of them make him look really good:
1) Rand Paul opposes gun control measures and voted with his party to filibuster the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which would've merely expended background checks to include internet sales and gun shows.
Good, good.
2) Rand Paul, like Ron Paul before him, has repeatedly objected to key provisions of the Civil Rights Act.
I'd have to see those "key provisions" to have an opinion on this one.
5) Rand Paul voted against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Again, it's very possible there's some bad, terrible shit in there. I'd have to see his reasons for opposition before believing this to be a point against him.
7) Rand Paul is a fan of paleoconservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and has appeared on Jones' show numerous times. He's also endorsed his share of wild conspiracy theories.
Guilt by association.
9) Rand Paul has repeatedly voted to de-fund and repeal the Affordable Care Act, and would very likely do so as president. He's also spread "horror stories" about the law in Kentucky even though his state's exchange is one of the best in the nation.
He sounds good for the push for repealing. I would need to see these "horror stories" to determine anything about this part, though. Given this seems like a pretty left-wing site, the horror stories could have actually been legitimate objections which the left is so fond of labeling as hate/racism/sexism/etc.
12) Rand Paul supports the flat tax.
Is there ANYONE other than congressmen and their cronies who don't support this?
14) Rand Paul supports Voter ID laws, saying there's "nothing wrong" with them.
And what is wrong with them, exactly? I'm legitimately curious, I've never quite understood the problem with them. As long as there's a requirement not to allow which candidates/bills/etc were voted on to be tied or associated with the person or their ID, I just don't see the problem.
15) Rand Paul, in addition to a series of racially-questionable associates, is a supporter of both states' rights and nullification, archaic tent-post beliefs held by neo-Confederates.
As am I, States' Rights is perhaps the greatest issue facing our nation today. And nullification is the right of the jury; whether by design or intentional, it is indeed a good feature.
In fact, that last point alone if even a very good reason for me to vote for this guy. Shit, if he was a convicted serial rapist I would still have to think about it, that last point is just too strong.
The points I didn't quote are issues I'm not challenging, though. If they are accurate then, well, fuck.