Endless assertions that it's not true, with no evidence doesn't make it false either... But that's all the cards you have left to play...
Are there no lessons to learn from history? Are we really that stupid to think it doesn't have anything to say here?
So you proceed to repeat your claims that the sky is going to fall and kill us all if we don't keep these rules around.... Lather up the crowd, rinse and repeat.
Look, if we actually end up having an identifiable issue and not these "it might happen" things you guys have invented, why don't we agree that in the event something actually happens that needs to be adjusted in the regulatory structure we can do it later when everybody agrees it is necessary. Throwing regulations at hypothetical problems invented to justify the proposed regulations is just plain stupidity of the highest order. Besides, if we have an issue you get to say "See! I told you so!" and gloat, and do it with my blessing.
LOL... Don't understand history eh? Think we need government protection form the evil corporations on the internet eh? That's just stupid talk.
On the Koch brothers... Do you even know who the Koch brother are or where they live?
Not that I've actually met them, but I've seen them in public, know people who work for them and even know precisely where they live (drove by it around Christmas time and saw their Christmas lights actually). I can tell you they are not Satan in the flesh or worthy of your scorn. However, I get how the left has their favorite whipping boys and hobby horses you just have to ride... So Yeeee Hawwww! you loony leftist type, here's your buggy whip..
The explanation is more orthodox than some of the alternatives offered...
Unfortunately, no matter how extraordinary, scientific observations rarely (if ever) accommodate exciting far-fetched theories, leading disaffected audiences back to television...
Oh yes they do. It may seem mundane and pointless repeated observations, but sometimes such things lead to huge advances in understanding, especially when the observed doesn't match the expected results, or when the results unexpectedly change.
The discovery of atomic number was such a thing, where using X-Rays an aspiring young chemist named Moseley armed with an X-Ray tube and a crystal refractor proved that Mendeleev's periodic table actually made sense.
Previous candidates for the origin of the fleeting blasts of radiation -- known as fast radio bursts, or FRBs -- have included exploding stars, the reverberations of weird objects called cosmic strings or even distant beacons from interstellar alien spaceships.
You forgot to list the microwave oven that was in the break room in the next building. That was at the radio observatory in West Virginia, if I recall correctly.
I've been around for *most* if the internet's history and personally witnessed the rise and fall of all sorts of "They will take over the world!" things it spawned.
I remember when Netscape was the only browser, when AOL was pretty much the world's ISP and Yahoo was the only search engine anybody ever knew. None of that is true today and it all happened without the help of Net Neutrality regulations mandated by some government agency. We developed HTTP, got annoyed by animated GIFS, then struggled to contain Style sheets and Java Script as it exploded websites from a collection of text and clickable links into interactive user interfaces. All this, no government involvement or interference in the development of these technologies.
Facebook is the only thing because the haven't figured out how to make a profit with it so nobody has an incentive to duplicate, adapt and beat them. There is no money in it. Yahoo used to be wildly successful and the ONLY game in town and once it started making money, competitors came out of the wood work for a piece of the search engine pie. Now we have Google, Bing AND Yahoo and a pretty long list of failed attempts to field search engines. Again, with no help from the FCC's rules...
I don't know what all ya'all are worried about in this regard. Competition has been working since the late 80's on the internet just fine thank you and I see no reason that it cannot continue to work the same way in the future w/o massive government involvement. What do you think has changed here?
I'm also old enough to remember how things worked when the government was regulating the Airline industry, were routes where doled out by the government with tweezers and how the service and prices of airline tickets was regulated. There was zero innovation, no price competition and everybody made money, except the people who wanted to get into the business and couldn't. Then these oppressive regulations ended, the airline industry was deregulated and guess what? The number of airlines grew, service increased, innovation drove efficiency, better and more profitable routes where found and developed and more money was made. All the while, Prices fell and availably went up, WAY up and now just about anybody can fly, not just the well to do and business customers.
We don't need to make the same kinds of mistakes with the internet... Leave government regulation out of this, it really doesn't help anything.
An often repeated saying goes like this: "Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it" to which I ad "While those who DO study history are forced to watch."
It didn't hurt Obama's reelection why would it be an issue for Trump?
Are you suggesting that there are some Americans who *want* warrantless surveillance on them?
No, I'm suggesting that if renewing FISA didn't hurt the last guy in the Oval Office, why would it hurt the current one? Or maybe I missed where an Obama veto was overridden to get FISA renewed?
If the democrats vote as a block there will be no cloture vote and no filibuster. Debate will never end and the bill will die, even if the majority tries to push it. The only way the majority would be able to do this unilaterally is to suspend the Senate rules and use the nuclear option to suspend the requirements for cloture for this bill. Where this is *possible* I don't think it's likely that the republicans would want to die on that hill.
However, I don't think this issue will be decided by a partisan vote. My guess is both parties will eventually support this bill and FISA will be renewed with very few changes.. Rand Paul will be left sputtering on the Senate floor, but it will pass with both democrat and republican support and Trump will sign it.
At the very least, it would probably preclude him from getting re-elected for a second term in 2020.
How's that? It didn't hurt Obama's reelection why would it be an issue for Trump? Because it ticks off Rand Paul or something?
I suppose democrats will demagogue this issue the best they can, but they have dirty enough hands they cannot go too far or it will certainly be made to backfire on them.
Where I get your attempt at humor and would mod you up if I had points...
I do need to point out that FISA isn't really part of this little controversy you bring up. Foreign nationals on foreign soil do not require FISA warrants to have their communications intercepted and monitored... Should a US citizen be inadvertently collected on while talking to a valid foreign target, that's OK to do. You just cannot use such intercepts as evidence in a criminal investigation/prosecution w/o a warrant which requires the same probable cause as any other warrant.
I don't believe FISA warrants were required for unmasking OR collections in this case as there was no criminal investigation involved. That doesn't minimize the importance of the issue, but it does change the complexion of it some.
Do tell me then wise A/C.. IF the US Constitution applies to the whole world, who is responsible for enforcement of say "the bill of rights" in China or North Korea?
Once the bill shows up on the Donald's desk, THEN the buck stops with him, but not before.
How about it boys and girls of the democrat caucus? You going to let this out of the Senate? I believe you can easily stop it from gaining cloture by just voting as a block. What are you going to do?
Senator wants Apple to donate to its campaign funds. You know, to resolve the "issues" that they may have due to "consumer criticism"
I doubt it.. His seat isn't up for election for at least 4 more years, is a 3 time incumbent and he won his last election by 40 points... He's in no danger of losing his seat...
LOL... Keep trying to amp up the riot... Crying "Give us Barabbas" from the back of the crowd isn't going to work long term.
First, I see no advantage for ISP's to filter content. That takes equipment and manpower to do. Both cost money and impact profit so there is no incentive to do it. They also didn't do this before NN was made a rule so why do you think they would suddenly decide it's a good idea now, two years later? What changed? Nothing I can see.
Second, Net Neutrality didn't regulate content providers in their choice of content. Facebook was still in full control of it's content and could filter to it's heart's content with no "neutral" unbiased requirement for filters or content. There was no "equal time/space" requirement levied on content providers, and never could be with the 1st amendment remaining in full force. You can publish what you want and refuse what you don't under NN and now without it. If Facebook wanted to suppress specific opinions, they can, and actually do now.
Third, there is no such thing as free content (porn or otherwise) because it costs somebody something to put it up there. I'm pretty sure that the motives (advertising profit or what have you) that puts this stuff out for free isn't going to change. It was there before NN, during NN, and will remain after NN is gone.
So why are you yelling at the back of the crowd again?
LOL... Yea, but does it matter enough to get them to vote when "Hey look, my Netflix still works even with out NN... What in the (h e double hockey sticks) are they yammering on about?"
I think you wildly over estimate the importance of the issue to voters or the ease with which the issue is defused by the "We don't need government regulation messing up the internet" argument.
So, what polls tell you this? Can you give us a reference that includes the poll results, raw data and the method used?
Interests are in the eye of the beholder.... NN doesn't matter to the majority of voters as long as their Netflix works.
I suppose the democrats can try to *make* it an issue by yammering on and on about unfairness, but that takes time and money, both of which are in short supply on the left. So if this is all they got, they are in serious trouble.
Truly, the left needs to stop wasting time on the trivial like NN and come up with some bigger issues for their stump speeches and campaign ads. Times a wast'n and money is short. Maybe resurrect that impeachment thing? Russian collusion narrative? Or, that obstruction of justice fiasco? Oh right, those are not working for you... "M-peach 45!" just doesn't have the ring in the middle it once had and eventually voters get tired of the chicken little act.
Hey, it will only serve to raise money for the left.. But they are soooo far behind on that now even this won't matter.
The democrats are accustom to being able to out spend their republican counterparts by wide margins in contested elections, but with so many house and seats on the margin and with so many Senate seats at risk for the democrats, they are in serious trouble money wise. They simply MUST find some kind of traction on some issues here but if NN is all they got, their collective congressional goose is cooked. Their opponents will be able to out spend them for the first time in decades and they are not good running under those conditions.
Actually no.. If they manage to get Congressional Review passed though both the house and Senate (unlikely to be sure) and Trump actually signs it (a snowballs chance of that) it reverses the FCC's decision. Further the FCC cannot re-issue the rule making and Net Neutrality would remain in force unless congress acted. Lucky it won't get out of the Senate... It would be a huge mess if this actually happened. The CR process is supposed to stop rules from being made, not deleted, and the unintended side effects are nasty if used to stop a rule from being deleted.
So, they are actually making a law about it, as they should have in the first place, rather than a proclamation from an unelected regulatory body? Seems like that is exactly what *should* happen.
Nope, they are *trying* to use the Congressional Review process and reverse the FCC's rulemaking that reversed the NN rules made 2 years ago.. Complex sounding? Yea, but the simple truth is they will fail, likely in the Senate, but if they manage a majority there, in the House.. IF they get really lucky and manage to swing the House, then it will be vetoed by Trump... At that point, the Senate would have to override the veto... No chance we get a veto override...
What they really are doing is trying to create a wedge issue for the 2018 midterms. Problem is, nobody but the left really cares as long as their Netfilx keeps streaming, so this will only be good for a few precious campaign donations which *might* buy a few votes from the sheep, but the issue won't win them any support from the middle. But I guess, the left is *way* behind in raising cash so they are clawing at anything they can dream up at this point.
Mark my words, we won't be talking NN by March, other issues will dominate.. If we are discussing it still come summer, democrats are going to loose big.
In both the Senate and the House, it *will* fail.... But this isn't about passing, it's about getting a vote record for the silly election season we rapidly approach.
Think of it as a two ring circus with a hoard of clowns running about looking for the best clown car they can find to drive up the votes... Eventually they will pile into a couple of the most promising cars and race around the area between the rings throwing cream pies at cars from the other ring...
Net Neutrality is just a broken car that doesn't run, but the paint looks shiny so it's attracting a pile of clowns right now. It won't make it to the pie throwing part come this summer...
Finally, you got my point on the Senate vote not giving you what you wanted..
NN doesn't matter to the middle as much as you'd like to think it does.. It only appeals to your base, but opposition to it appeals to the right so I call this a wash. That begs the question about the middle, where elections are decided. The middle is asking the "How's this NN matter to me and why are the left hyperventilating about it?" questions and not coming up with much. Their Netflix still works, so what's the big deal?
You guys gather the wrong cards and over play your hands too often. NN isn't a winning issue for you, but by all means, keep thinking it's your trump card...
Personally, I think you got bigger fish you can fry to better effect than this one, but hey, it's your loss...
The record will say "Motion carried" nothing more. Individual votes will not be recorded with voice votes, only the result. To get a record of each senator's vote requires a roll call vote.
Even if you manage to get a roll call vote, it's only a "send this to committee" action so any republican who thinks it will help them can easily vote for this motion then claim they just sent it to committee to die, much like the house voted 20+ times to repeal Obamacare, knowing it would die in the Senate, but they got their desired voting record...
In short, you won't get much out of this to hang any Senators with who are on the edge, mainly because there are very few of those. Collins has already put her name on the bill, but she faces reelection in Maine, a nearly blue state anyway so she disarmed your challenger on this issue. Nobody else really cares about this issue but your side... Go take a look at where Senate seats are up for grabs this year.... This issue is meaningless.
What part of "voice vote" don't you get? There will be no record except the motion passed or failed.
What happens is the chair calls a vote on the question and specifies it be taken by voice vote. He says "All in favor?".... "All opposed?" then judges by what he hears if the vote was in favor or opposed. The question will be to send it to committee "(insert the chair's choice of committees here)"....
You won't have a record of who voted which way and pretty much EVERYBODY will vote to refer it to committee, some to move it forward, others to see it die in committee. See? No political noose to hang your opponents (they voted to move foreword into committee, don't you know.) and your beloved bill dies, never taken up by the committee, controlled by the majority party....
So nice pointless maneuver by your side... But that's how this game is played... It's a long tradition by both sides...
Slashdot Mirror
Endless assertions that it's not true, with no evidence doesn't make it false either... But that's all the cards you have left to play...
Are there no lessons to learn from history? Are we really that stupid to think it doesn't have anything to say here?
So you proceed to repeat your claims that the sky is going to fall and kill us all if we don't keep these rules around.... Lather up the crowd, rinse and repeat.
Look, if we actually end up having an identifiable issue and not these "it might happen" things you guys have invented, why don't we agree that in the event something actually happens that needs to be adjusted in the regulatory structure we can do it later when everybody agrees it is necessary. Throwing regulations at hypothetical problems invented to justify the proposed regulations is just plain stupidity of the highest order. Besides, if we have an issue you get to say "See! I told you so!" and gloat, and do it with my blessing.
LOL... Don't understand history eh? Think we need government protection form the evil corporations on the internet eh? That's just stupid talk.
On the Koch brothers... Do you even know who the Koch brother are or where they live?
Not that I've actually met them, but I've seen them in public, know people who work for them and even know precisely where they live (drove by it around Christmas time and saw their Christmas lights actually). I can tell you they are not Satan in the flesh or worthy of your scorn. However, I get how the left has their favorite whipping boys and hobby horses you just have to ride... So Yeeee Hawwww! you loony leftist type, here's your buggy whip..
The explanation is more orthodox than some of the alternatives offered...
Unfortunately, no matter how extraordinary, scientific observations rarely (if ever) accommodate exciting far-fetched theories, leading disaffected audiences back to television...
Oh yes they do. It may seem mundane and pointless repeated observations, but sometimes such things lead to huge advances in understanding, especially when the observed doesn't match the expected results, or when the results unexpectedly change.
The discovery of atomic number was such a thing, where using X-Rays an aspiring young chemist named Moseley armed with an X-Ray tube and a crystal refractor proved that Mendeleev's periodic table actually made sense.
Previous candidates for the origin of the fleeting blasts of radiation -- known as fast radio bursts, or FRBs -- have included exploding stars, the reverberations of weird objects called cosmic strings or even distant beacons from interstellar alien spaceships.
You forgot to list the microwave oven that was in the break room in the next building. That was at the radio observatory in West Virginia, if I recall correctly.
Your UFO is a hot burrito!
Without NN there will be nothing *but* facebook!
How so?
I've been around for *most* if the internet's history and personally witnessed the rise and fall of all sorts of "They will take over the world!" things it spawned.
I remember when Netscape was the only browser, when AOL was pretty much the world's ISP and Yahoo was the only search engine anybody ever knew. None of that is true today and it all happened without the help of Net Neutrality regulations mandated by some government agency. We developed HTTP, got annoyed by animated GIFS, then struggled to contain Style sheets and Java Script as it exploded websites from a collection of text and clickable links into interactive user interfaces. All this, no government involvement or interference in the development of these technologies.
Facebook is the only thing because the haven't figured out how to make a profit with it so nobody has an incentive to duplicate, adapt and beat them. There is no money in it. Yahoo used to be wildly successful and the ONLY game in town and once it started making money, competitors came out of the wood work for a piece of the search engine pie. Now we have Google, Bing AND Yahoo and a pretty long list of failed attempts to field search engines. Again, with no help from the FCC's rules...
I don't know what all ya'all are worried about in this regard. Competition has been working since the late 80's on the internet just fine thank you and I see no reason that it cannot continue to work the same way in the future w/o massive government involvement. What do you think has changed here?
I'm also old enough to remember how things worked when the government was regulating the Airline industry, were routes where doled out by the government with tweezers and how the service and prices of airline tickets was regulated. There was zero innovation, no price competition and everybody made money, except the people who wanted to get into the business and couldn't. Then these oppressive regulations ended, the airline industry was deregulated and guess what? The number of airlines grew, service increased, innovation drove efficiency, better and more profitable routes where found and developed and more money was made. All the while, Prices fell and availably went up, WAY up and now just about anybody can fly, not just the well to do and business customers.
We don't need to make the same kinds of mistakes with the internet... Leave government regulation out of this, it really doesn't help anything.
An often repeated saying goes like this: "Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it" to which I ad "While those who DO study history are forced to watch."
Are you suggesting that there are some Americans who *want* warrantless surveillance on them?
No, I'm suggesting that if renewing FISA didn't hurt the last guy in the Oval Office, why would it hurt the current one? Or maybe I missed where an Obama veto was overridden to get FISA renewed?
If the democrats vote as a block there will be no cloture vote and no filibuster. Debate will never end and the bill will die, even if the majority tries to push it. The only way the majority would be able to do this unilaterally is to suspend the Senate rules and use the nuclear option to suspend the requirements for cloture for this bill. Where this is *possible* I don't think it's likely that the republicans would want to die on that hill.
However, I don't think this issue will be decided by a partisan vote. My guess is both parties will eventually support this bill and FISA will be renewed with very few changes.. Rand Paul will be left sputtering on the Senate floor, but it will pass with both democrat and republican support and Trump will sign it.
Come on.. He was just spouting off the usual democratic talking points, but doesn't actually understand the underlying issues of each.
LOL..
At the very least, it would probably preclude him from getting re-elected for a second term in 2020.
How's that? It didn't hurt Obama's reelection why would it be an issue for Trump? Because it ticks off Rand Paul or something?
I suppose democrats will demagogue this issue the best they can, but they have dirty enough hands they cannot go too far or it will certainly be made to backfire on them.
Where I get your attempt at humor and would mod you up if I had points...
I do need to point out that FISA isn't really part of this little controversy you bring up. Foreign nationals on foreign soil do not require FISA warrants to have their communications intercepted and monitored... Should a US citizen be inadvertently collected on while talking to a valid foreign target, that's OK to do. You just cannot use such intercepts as evidence in a criminal investigation/prosecution w/o a warrant which requires the same probable cause as any other warrant.
I don't believe FISA warrants were required for unmasking OR collections in this case as there was no criminal investigation involved. That doesn't minimize the importance of the issue, but it does change the complexion of it some.
Do tell me then wise A/C.. IF the US Constitution applies to the whole world, who is responsible for enforcement of say "the bill of rights" in China or North Korea?
"The buck stops with my predecessor."
At this point.... Yes, it does....
Once the bill shows up on the Donald's desk, THEN the buck stops with him, but not before.
How about it boys and girls of the democrat caucus? You going to let this out of the Senate? I believe you can easily stop it from gaining cloture by just voting as a block. What are you going to do?
Donald Trump is not Hussein Obama
Donald Trump isn't interested in knowing everything every American does every second of every single day
Donald Trump did not ask for those draconian measures
It was the *DEMONCRAPS* who tagged on all those draconian stuffs
Shesh there A/C... Ease up some... Until it actually passes the house and the senate, the Donald has nothing to do with this, except as a target...
Senator wants Apple to donate to its campaign funds. You know, to resolve the "issues" that they may have due to "consumer criticism"
I doubt it.. His seat isn't up for election for at least 4 more years, is a 3 time incumbent and he won his last election by 40 points... He's in no danger of losing his seat...
And he's not even up for re-election for another 5 years...
Hmmm.. He must think this is important then..
LOL... Keep trying to amp up the riot... Crying "Give us Barabbas" from the back of the crowd isn't going to work long term.
First, I see no advantage for ISP's to filter content. That takes equipment and manpower to do. Both cost money and impact profit so there is no incentive to do it. They also didn't do this before NN was made a rule so why do you think they would suddenly decide it's a good idea now, two years later? What changed? Nothing I can see.
Second, Net Neutrality didn't regulate content providers in their choice of content. Facebook was still in full control of it's content and could filter to it's heart's content with no "neutral" unbiased requirement for filters or content. There was no "equal time/space" requirement levied on content providers, and never could be with the 1st amendment remaining in full force. You can publish what you want and refuse what you don't under NN and now without it. If Facebook wanted to suppress specific opinions, they can, and actually do now.
Third, there is no such thing as free content (porn or otherwise) because it costs somebody something to put it up there. I'm pretty sure that the motives (advertising profit or what have you) that puts this stuff out for free isn't going to change. It was there before NN, during NN, and will remain after NN is gone.
So why are you yelling at the back of the crowd again?
LOL... Yea, but does it matter enough to get them to vote when "Hey look, my Netflix still works even with out NN... What in the (h e double hockey sticks) are they yammering on about?"
I think you wildly over estimate the importance of the issue to voters or the ease with which the issue is defused by the "We don't need government regulation messing up the internet" argument.
So, what polls tell you this? Can you give us a reference that includes the poll results, raw data and the method used?
Interests are in the eye of the beholder.... NN doesn't matter to the majority of voters as long as their Netflix works.
I suppose the democrats can try to *make* it an issue by yammering on and on about unfairness, but that takes time and money, both of which are in short supply on the left. So if this is all they got, they are in serious trouble.
Truly, the left needs to stop wasting time on the trivial like NN and come up with some bigger issues for their stump speeches and campaign ads. Times a wast'n and money is short. Maybe resurrect that impeachment thing? Russian collusion narrative? Or, that obstruction of justice fiasco? Oh right, those are not working for you... "M-peach 45!" just doesn't have the ring in the middle it once had and eventually voters get tired of the chicken little act.
Hey, it will only serve to raise money for the left.. But they are soooo far behind on that now even this won't matter.
The democrats are accustom to being able to out spend their republican counterparts by wide margins in contested elections, but with so many house and seats on the margin and with so many Senate seats at risk for the democrats, they are in serious trouble money wise. They simply MUST find some kind of traction on some issues here but if NN is all they got, their collective congressional goose is cooked. Their opponents will be able to out spend them for the first time in decades and they are not good running under those conditions.
Actually no.. If they manage to get Congressional Review passed though both the house and Senate (unlikely to be sure) and Trump actually signs it (a snowballs chance of that) it reverses the FCC's decision. Further the FCC cannot re-issue the rule making and Net Neutrality would remain in force unless congress acted. Lucky it won't get out of the Senate... It would be a huge mess if this actually happened. The CR process is supposed to stop rules from being made, not deleted, and the unintended side effects are nasty if used to stop a rule from being deleted.
So, they are actually making a law about it, as they should have in the first place, rather than a proclamation from an unelected regulatory body? Seems like that is exactly what *should* happen.
Nope, they are *trying* to use the Congressional Review process and reverse the FCC's rulemaking that reversed the NN rules made 2 years ago.. Complex sounding? Yea, but the simple truth is they will fail, likely in the Senate, but if they manage a majority there, in the House.. IF they get really lucky and manage to swing the House, then it will be vetoed by Trump... At that point, the Senate would have to override the veto... No chance we get a veto override...
What they really are doing is trying to create a wedge issue for the 2018 midterms. Problem is, nobody but the left really cares as long as their Netfilx keeps streaming, so this will only be good for a few precious campaign donations which *might* buy a few votes from the sheep, but the issue won't win them any support from the middle. But I guess, the left is *way* behind in raising cash so they are clawing at anything they can dream up at this point.
Mark my words, we won't be talking NN by March, other issues will dominate.. If we are discussing it still come summer, democrats are going to loose big.
In both the Senate and the House, it *will* fail.... But this isn't about passing, it's about getting a vote record for the silly election season we rapidly approach.
Think of it as a two ring circus with a hoard of clowns running about looking for the best clown car they can find to drive up the votes... Eventually they will pile into a couple of the most promising cars and race around the area between the rings throwing cream pies at cars from the other ring...
Net Neutrality is just a broken car that doesn't run, but the paint looks shiny so it's attracting a pile of clowns right now. It won't make it to the pie throwing part come this summer...
Finally, you got my point on the Senate vote not giving you what you wanted..
NN doesn't matter to the middle as much as you'd like to think it does.. It only appeals to your base, but opposition to it appeals to the right so I call this a wash. That begs the question about the middle, where elections are decided. The middle is asking the "How's this NN matter to me and why are the left hyperventilating about it?" questions and not coming up with much. Their Netflix still works, so what's the big deal?
You guys gather the wrong cards and over play your hands too often. NN isn't a winning issue for you, but by all means, keep thinking it's your trump card...
Personally, I think you got bigger fish you can fry to better effect than this one, but hey, it's your loss...
The record will say "Motion carried" nothing more. Individual votes will not be recorded with voice votes, only the result. To get a record of each senator's vote requires a roll call vote.
Even if you manage to get a roll call vote, it's only a "send this to committee" action so any republican who thinks it will help them can easily vote for this motion then claim they just sent it to committee to die, much like the house voted 20+ times to repeal Obamacare, knowing it would die in the Senate, but they got their desired voting record...
In short, you won't get much out of this to hang any Senators with who are on the edge, mainly because there are very few of those. Collins has already put her name on the bill, but she faces reelection in Maine, a nearly blue state anyway so she disarmed your challenger on this issue. Nobody else really cares about this issue but your side... Go take a look at where Senate seats are up for grabs this year.... This issue is meaningless.
What part of "voice vote" don't you get? There will be no record except the motion passed or failed.
What happens is the chair calls a vote on the question and specifies it be taken by voice vote. He says "All in favor?".... "All opposed?" then judges by what he hears if the vote was in favor or opposed. The question will be to send it to committee "(insert the chair's choice of committees here)"....
You won't have a record of who voted which way and pretty much EVERYBODY will vote to refer it to committee, some to move it forward, others to see it die in committee. See? No political noose to hang your opponents (they voted to move foreword into committee, don't you know.) and your beloved bill dies, never taken up by the committee, controlled by the majority party....
So nice pointless maneuver by your side... But that's how this game is played... It's a long tradition by both sides...