Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Privacy Security

What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"? 385

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

Comments Filter:
  • by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:54PM (#49747213) Journal

    Public relations... What was everybody expecting?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There are far easier ways to nab headlines than to do a ten hour filibuster. The average American probably doesn't even know what that means anymore.

      • by SONETengagementRING ( 4024239 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @10:31PM (#49748457)
        I felt like the true PR whore was Ted Cruz, showing up right at the end to fellate Rand for a couple minutes and make sure his name got included in all the news stories without having to really do anything.
        • wrong (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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

          • Re:wrong (Score:4, Informative)

            by dywolf ( 2673597 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @07:20AM (#49749749)

            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 [alternet.org] :

            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 [salon.com]:

            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

            • Re:wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

              by One With Whisp ( 3931647 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @07:53AM (#49749923)

              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.

              • 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.

                Not Jury nullification but this:
                  Nullification is a term that means that states could reject or nullify a law passed by Congress if they do not like the law. Think about it for a minute.

            • Re:wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

              by khallow ( 566160 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @09:00AM (#49750505)
              Are you trying to promote Paul or bad mouth him? If you think libertarians are crazy, you ought to see their critics, amirite?
              • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

                Merely pointing out his hypocrisy.
                He has a reputation here for being a libertarian hero, but few seem to know how many times he's flipped on the things that makes him a darling to the "libertarians".

            • Re:wrong (Score:4, Informative)

              by eheldreth ( 751767 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @11:30AM (#49752055) Homepage
              I'm not sure if I would vote for Rand Paul. There are certainly issues I disagree with him on. You on the other hand seem to have no grasp of nuance in complex issues. You try to flatten and simplify every quote into it's most meaningless talking point and then twist it to fit your narrative. You do realize most of those "flip flop" issues are just nuanced positions on complex issues, right? Just for brevity I've picked out two of the "flip flop" issues you alluded to. Lets address the "drone" statements first. Paul's first statement was in regards to the use of drones in anti-terror operations and the fear at that time they could begin being used against Americans on American soil without due process. Pauls second statement was addressing the use of drones by civilian police against active, direct, and immediate criminal threats. As to the third statement, drones are not inherently military equipment and the militarization of the police force is a wholly separate issue from their use of drones. Now lets look at the "Israel" issue. Paul is a supporter of eliminating all foreing aid. One of his ideas I don't support by the way. The followup question three years later is asked in the context of eliminating aid to Israel specifically. In this situation Paul is obviously pointing out that he has no desire to target Israel explicitly for removal of foreign aid. Unless your interviewing for a job with Fox News twisting these nuances to fit your predisposed ideas about what "The other side" is thinking only weakens political discourse in the long run.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22, 2015 @06:52AM (#49749653)

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:56PM (#49747223)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:05PM (#49747267)
      But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end. About the only real action I see happening is that he's getting attention for his presidential campaign. However, given his fringe opinion on many subjects I doubt he'll ever get the nomination, much less actually get elected. But since he's tied into the party insiders, it's likely his true intention is to keep his demographic distracted during the primaries while the party maneuvers a mediocre candidate into place to get the nomination. If he was serious about getting into the oval office and serious about his libertarian ideals, he'd run as an independent.
      • by rock_climbing_guy ( 630276 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:26PM (#49747387) Journal
        His father Ron Paul once ran third party and got less than 1% of the vote, if I'm not mistaken.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:44PM (#49747499)

        > But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.

        Not so.

        There's a fable about a man who preached everyday for 20 years in a public place, only to be asked by a friend why wouldn't he quit -- since nobody was caring about the issues he talked about. He answered: "If I quit, they will have won."

        I didn't hear his discourse. But 11h talking is enough for me to believe at least one American is concerned by the current state of the USA and, by extension, of the world.

        As a foreigner, I believe Obama is a more than reasonable guy; I also believe he's caught amid the highly defective machine that is American Politics. He can have ideas and see which ones the Democrats and the GOP will let him make happen. IOW, bottom line: he cannot do much.

        Whether this will benefit or be a hindrance to Mr. Paul, he did a good citizen work by touching these important matters. If I had voted for him (I'm not from the US), I'd be very satisfied. In the end, all we can do is try. If enough people try, together they may succeed against the crooks, the greedy, the powerthirsty and those who want a Thought Police.

        If the world is to be a better and safer place, we should pay attention to our own defects (not just the USA), try to hear what others say about us and start a real negotiation to make the world work better than till now...

        • Mod parent up
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          As a foreigner, I believe Obama is a more than reasonable guy; I also believe he's caught amid the highly defective machine that is American Politics. He can have ideas and see which ones the Democrats and the GOP will let him make happen. IOW, bottom line: he cannot do much.

          Personal feelings for or against a politician does nothing. Big businesses don't care much about how they feel about Politician X or Y. The question is whether Politician X or Y will work with them or against them, and whether they ca

        • by davester666 ( 731373 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @12:59AM (#49748831) Journal

          No. Obama could have had the NSA to do a right turn and stop their mass data collection 6 years ago. They DIRECTLY report to him. He tells them what to do.

          Congress and the Senate can just question them, and limit the things they can do.

          Given that he has actively expanded what the NSA are doing, and made a point of going after whistleblowers, he appears to be happy with the current setup.

      • But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.

        That applies to about 99.9% of every effort to change things in Washington for the better. But 1000 of those actions just might.

      • If he was serious about getting into the oval office and serious about his libertarian ideals, he'd run as an independent.

        HAHAHAHA. Okay. I thought your post was serious until then, but you gave away the gag.

      • by grcumb ( 781340 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @10:37PM (#49748461) Homepage Journal

        But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.

        Not to put too fine a point on it, the lack of action is your fault, not Rand Paul's. He's more than done his part. He's offered a rallying point for anyone who cares about the issue, and he's elucidated in the most detailed way possible just what the hazards are. He's actually stopped the machine for a moment, and all you can manage is to diss him for too little, too late?

        Look, I don't even like the guy. He stands for a lot of things that I fundamentally oppose. But I respect him. At least he is willing to do politics using the machine the way it was designed, rather than breaking it further—which is what the rest of the right-wing establishment seems to want to do.

        Rand Paul is someone I feel I could reason with on most matters. I can't say that of most other politicians. And the fact that you're damning him with faint praise is actually enabling the others and contributing to the sense of futility that pervades so much of modern political discourse today.

    • Read the article on arstechnica. He stopped 11 minutes short of midnight. If he'd actually had the balls to filibuster the bill it wouldn't have passed in the first place.
  • 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.

    • More than PR (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:18PM (#49747339)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 )

        The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president? The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior.

        How can you tell? It seemed like he was running for president even before being elected Senator.

    • PR Stunt (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:35PM (#49747433)

      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.

    • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:37PM (#49747457)

      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.

      • Um... Isn't that sorta what a filibuster does? He's a senator, not house of reps. He's got orders of magnitude more power. He wasn't trying very hard, that much is obvious. Make of that what you will
      • by funwithBSD ( 245349 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @07:25PM (#49747671)

        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.

        • So for at least one weekend, there will be no NSA spying

          A more cynical person would find that to be +5, Funny.

        • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @08:54PM (#49748003)

          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.

    • It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.

      If you take Rand at his word the point of his speech was to have votes on amendments to "USA Freedom Act". Actually Filibustering the USA Freedom Act would seem to me to be counterproductive to those ends.

  • Sadly not much (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:59PM (#49747237)

    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.

    • Re:Sadly not much (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:17PM (#49747337)

      The senior senators have more to hide that the NSA already knows about.

      And if anyone thinks that isn't at least a factor, I may have some shares in a bridge for sale.

    • the people that reflexively vote for their party indifferent to whether the incumbent is a piece of shit... you're the problem.

      The people trust the press to give them information about who to vote for. When the press is owned and operated by criminals, the citizens get false information and they vote based on that.

      We can see the same thing with what happened in Iraq. The congress trusted the CIA and the administration to give them accurate information. When presented with lies, people will vote according to the lie.

      • Re:Sadly not much (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:30PM (#49747401)

        Bullshit. Yes, the press is corrupt but everyone knows it.

        People don't vote for their party because they trust the press. They vote for their party because they're are tribalistic.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Bullshit. Yes, the press is corrupt but everyone knows it.

          While you are to a certain extent correct about the tribalism in your following comment, I don't know that this particular statement is true. I pretty regularly run into people who'll spout some nonsense at me about something they saw on Fox or MSNBC, lathered-up about some terrible injustice (which 99% of the time is a bald-faced hoax). Many people place near absolute trust in their echo chamber news outlets.

          • I can only speak to what I hear from other people and what reports and statistics I can gather.

            My own information shows broad distrust of the media.

            What is more, the decline of traditional media and growth of alternative media suggests that traditional media is not trusted.

            This does not mean that alternative media is more trustworthy but it is easier to audit given that you can go through many sources on line very quickly where as trying to do the same thing with traditional media is impractical.

            As to echo

  • 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 weren't even filibustering the actual Act. They basically just held up the Senate for 10 hours knowing full well that nothing concrete was being accomplished.

    • Re:Not much (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:12PM (#49747309)

      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.

    • They basically just held up the Senate for 10 hours knowing full well that nothing concrete was being accomplished.

      Hey, they stopped the Senate from screwing anything up for 10 hours. That sounds like an accomplishment to me.

  • It showed a lot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:07PM (#49747269)

    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/... [washingtonpost.com]

      He warned of possible abuses of power. But now that he is president he has changed his tune. Abuse of powers indeed.

    • I believe you're forgetting about Mr. Wyden [oregonlive.com] (D-OR).

      However, they are both hopelessly outgunned in this quest.

      • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        Yeah He and Wyden were basically tag-teaming during the whole fillibuster.
        I guess he also included another as a way to be covered so he can take a bathroom break or whatever.

      • Right - but you know who didn't show up? Bernie Sanders (S-VT). He claims to be a civil libertarian but couldn't bother to join the other Democrats who came to support the issue.

        I think we know where his masters are on this issue - he's deep into the F-35 fighter jet fiasco; MIC is where his bread is buttered.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by FranTaylor ( 164577 )

      But now that he is president he has changed his tune. Abuse of powers indeed.

      Thanks for this information, I will be sure to avoid voting for him, the next time he runs for president.

    • Re:It showed a lot (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:21PM (#49747373)

      Rand Paul, whether you agree with his politics or not, is the only one with the guts to stand up against the Patriot Act.

      It's easy to say just about anything you want when you already know how the vote is going to turn out. It's a common ploy by both parties to keep their demographic distracted from what's really going on. Both sides introduce all kinds of bills (abortion and gun control are two effective topics) that appeal to their voting block knowing the bills will never make it out of committee. The other side can stand up and vociferously rail against the "heinous" legislation being considered. But in the end, it's nothing more than a dog and pony show that they can sell to their district when it comes time to get out the vote. The bills that are going to pass will pass regardless of what the "representatives" actually stand up and say to the cameras.

      Do they actually accomplish anything beyond keeping the mouth breathing party line voters lining up? Not really, no.

    • I remember lots of Democrat outrage when it first came to be.

      Are you talking about the Patriot Act that passed the Senate 98-1? Sure, the one dissenting Senator was a Democrat (Feingold) but that is hardly "lots of Democrat outrage". The Democrats weren't outraged then and they aren't outraged now, they want to snoop on you and control you JUST as much as "the party of small government" does. The US party duopoly is two sides of the same shitty coin.

  • This. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hirundo ( 221676 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:13PM (#49747311)

    We're talking about it. And a politician in favor of a little more freedom has a little more visibility. That's enough.

  • It's a fake!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by satsuke ( 263225 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:29PM (#49747397)

    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.

    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      You need the backing of your party to do the fake-filibuster thing. Obviously, most senators in both parties love the NSA, the Patriot act, the who deal, and wouldn't support him. So a real filibuster was his only option. At least he's doing what he can - good for him!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    He did this during the debate on fast tracking the TPP. Honestly everyone should be targeting stopping fast track status. TPP is a secret trade treaty and fast track only allows the senate to do an up/down vote with 51% majority, but requires 2/3 to vote to pick it apart. Worst deal ever. IDS will ruin the world, our laws will be stuck against a treaty and we won't be able to reduce or roll back any laws that are mandated by the treaty. Screw our privacy, save our nation and economy.

  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @06:36PM (#49747437)

    ... public.

  • Listened to the entire thing in the background yesterday. More than anything I really think he just wants a vote on his amendments. A real filibuster would kind of be too late in this case if the actual goal is to have votes on amendments to fix USA Freedom act.

    It could just be self-promotion and all but lets not forget he did the same thing over drones a couple years ago and in my view he seems to actually care about his cause.

  • by DavidinAla ( 639952 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @08:23PM (#49747895)
    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.
  • by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @09:16PM (#49748097) Homepage Journal

    What is the reason for the scare quotes on "filibuster"? Rand Paul's filibuster was, in fact, a filibuster, unlike the fake filibusters we have been subjected to over the last 40-odd years when the threat of a filibuster became a de-facto one, but without anyone actually having to stand in the chamber and talk for as long as they could stand to be there - ala "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

    Are we so desensitized now by phony parliamentary maneuvers that don't actually require any effort on the part of our representatives that when someone actually follows the traditional route of discussion and debate and puts up a rhetorical fight we have to use scare quotes to distinguish it from the backroom posturing that normally goes on?

    • it's in quotes because he's the little boy who cries wolf and everybody has stopped paying attention to him

      • it's in quotes because he's the little boy who cries wolf and everybody has stopped paying attention to him

        Yea, because nobody gives a crap if the government is collecting all your information, reading your email, and listening to your phone calls. If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about, right? Who cares about the 4th Amendment, it's all antiquated and stuff. We just want our Facebook and our smart phones and the GPS on our cars so Big Brother knows where we are. Silly, to make an issue of NSA's actions.

        • Re:why the quotes (Score:4, Informative)

          by FranTaylor ( 164577 ) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @09:29PM (#49748165)

          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

          • 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

            Why? Do you think he lied? Because I have heard of them, too. I've even heard of ones that didn't even survive. Why do you focus on that out-of-context quote instead of his entire point? Are there no issues with vaccines? Should the government be mandating 200 vaccine shots for every citizen, regardless of outcome, and regardless of the pharmaceutical company immunity from any liability, but retaining all the profits from government-supported funding? Do you distrust Rand Paul more than pharmaceutica

            • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

              and btw, he wasn't misquoted, though he has tried to cover up what he said (and this is the story that resulting him in telling a female reporter to "shush").

              He said, verbatim:

              I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.

              You cant explain that away.

              and yes, he IS a known crackpot himself, frequently airing on Alex Jones' crackpot radio show, and repeating some of the crazy conspiracy theories to come from there.

/earth: file system full.

Working...