Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act
politico.com
politico.com
Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of a campaign of slash-and-burn against these agencies will get the job done, and it's going to take someone as "nutty" as a Paul to do it.
The other republicans seem like a bunch of idiots. It's likely that Hillary will come to power. She does seem to have the money for it.
The only other option is Sanders and he seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system.
When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulating that power much easier for the elites. No longer do they have to bribe politicians in each state, just the ones in Washington DC. The founding fathers knew this (they experienced this with the British Monarchy) and that's why they intended on having a very limited federal government that had little control over social programs and whose main purpose was to see that states take it upon themselves to enforce rights provided by the constitution.
Remember when we integrated schools? The left would like you to believe the DOE is some kind of federal schooling system when in fact all it really does is issue pell grants. The federal government did not take over the schooling sector. The only thing the federal government did was step in when a state refused to integrate.
I urge leftists to reconsider their position. I'm in favor of social programs like single payer healthcare, but having the federal government do it is just asinine. The federal government needs to pass a bill that makes healthcare a right, then leave it up to the states to implement free healthcare. Those that don't will be forced to, just like we did when some schools refused to integrate.
If you hate too big to fail companies, then why allow one entity to monopolize a whole sector of the economy? As soon as one of these huge social programs fails, down goes the whole economy. It happened in the USSR and it could happen here. Just let the states handle it like they do in the EU. That way, when one states social programs fail it doesn't bring down the whole economy. Notice that this is a compromise. The left still gets it's healthcare while the right still gets a small federal government. It's a win-win. Unfortunately both the left and right would like you to believe that any compromise is giving into the other side, they must perpetuate the idea that you only have one right choice and that if you're not with them you're completely against them.
The US on the other hand has much more disagreement. The USSR consisted of many countries dominated by the Soviets who didn't agree with many policies of the government. While the US isn't taking over other countries and making more US states, the states are already similar to small countries.
As we concentrate power more and more at a federal level we take away sovereignty from the individual states. This, in my opinion is very similar to what lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. They spread themselves thin and forced everyone to assimilate under one political ideology. This only works when a large portion of the country agrees with said policies.
While the US will probably never suffer the same fate as the USSR, I could easily see us spreading our selves to thin across the globe, mismanaging money, and pissing everyone off, thus leading to economic decline and loss of faith in the political system as a whole (this is already happening).
America won't be able to handle socialism. We want too many things.
K.
I'm aware that his politics comes with some, possibly many unsavory views, but I fully believe unchecked surveillance presents an existential crisis to America as we know it. Backsliding on marriage or abortion can be corrected in the future. There comes a point where there's no turning back the clock on ubiquitous surveillance.
It's not "false and nutty", it's either malicious or outright idiotic.
Just fyi, Bernie Sanders' stance on NSA spying is very similar to Rand Paul's.
But the fact that I haven't heard Sanders make surveillance the forefront of his campaign is a bit concerning. Also the fact that he didn't make an appearance at Paul's "filibuster" says quite a bit. Say what you want about how useless the filibuster was, lack of awareness of the facts around the surveillance issue is the biggest factor in the government's favor. Making a very loud and public stand against surveillance has tangible benefits. I was disappointed that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.
Not that you can tell much about who is likely to win the nomination this far out from the first primary (basically, what you can tell now is name recognition prior to significant campaigning, which would mislead as to the winner of the nomination in most elections where there isn't an incumbent President or Vice President in the primary.)
Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives, very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years (depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party rule.
Many, many other things would happen that you probably would not like.
I'll take small government over monolithic Authoritarianism any day.
Http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
More than that, though, if Rand Paul actually got the nomination -- which he almost certainly won't -- and went on to win the general election, that would potentially be a lot bigger than one minor victory in the constant right-vs-left tug-of-war over American government. It would be a political realignment, because the coalition Rand Paul would build and the platform he would run on are not the traditional Republican coalition and platform.
It could be the start of America actually having a pro-liberty party. That tradeoff might be worth it even for folks on the left who lean libertarian.
Most importantly, we need to be clear on the objectives. As it is there is a pervasive dirty feeling that the the ulterior motive is surveillance and control of US citizenry for purposes of retaining power. This might not be the case but with the amount of deceit that has recently occurred many people feel this way. So they need to start over in a transparent and trustworthy way.
Consider that Clinton has been on the national stage for 30+ years, while Rand has only been on it for months.
That's way more than just "a shot", that's damn good.
Maybe, just maybe, one of his competitors will listen and be forced to adjust.
Think of all the people running for the Republican slot, this time and last time. Most of them know they have no chance.
They might just want to influence the debate, and move whoever wins closer to a position that they want.
Or they may be looking for book deals and talk show employment.
Or it might just be a way to enjoy good food for 18 months.
Or maybe they just have a huge ego and like to stand in front of cheering people.
When you're a politician you raise campaign chests, and when you retire, you get to keep those contributions.
So, running for president puts you on the national stage, allows you to raise a lot more money.
For someone like Ron Paul this was a win-win. He secured a nice retirement while getting out there and invigorating a grassroots Libertarian movement and also getting his message-- which I think nobody can dispute he's genuinely passionate about-- out there.
For someone like Rick Santorum, though, it's either to help secure his seat against his next challenger, or just greed...
The US is however not a parliamentary system so coalition-building happens at the voter level rather than the legislator level. Many libertarians are forming a coalition-of-voters with the Republican party and by supporting Rand Paul are hoping to shift the Republican party libertarian-ward. He does not however currently represent a large enough ideological constituency that he would be able to form a coalition-of-voters large enough to actually be elected president.
> I've been waiting for years...
I'm curious what you thought of Ron Paul's candidacy.
After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change.
It's still early and the old style christian-conservative out-dated positions on foreign policy, "law and order" etc people are still around, but it's clear they are on the out.
The question is, how fast will the republican party change?
And a lot of that kind of change happens during these big elections.
So, early broad support for Rand Paul is exactly what could prompt the shift.
After all, when a party can count on a constituency (And at this point where are christian conservatives going to go?) they can take them for granted and seek out the constituency that is at risk.
That should be the Gay constituency for democrats who have taken them for granted and abused them for decades. (I'm not heterosexual, so that includes me, and that's why I haven't voted for a democrat for 20+ years.)
Are you sure? Incumbents rarely lose, and it was a very close election. Couple that with the wave the Republicans had in the midterm elections (especially in a few states that typically go blue), I could see the Republican party just thinking it's their turn now. If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their base.
I should note that I am not a Christian conservative, just doing some backseat political analysis.
But Romney wasn't a hardcore Christian Conservative either.
> If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their base.
The religious right may not love Rand Paul but they hate Hillary Clinton. Most of them would show up to vote against her regardless of who the Republican candidate was. Meanwhile Rand Paul has more appeal with swing voters and libertarian-leaning Democrats than any of the other Republican candidates. If he won the nomination he would have a solid position in the general election.
In light of the recent revelations regarding CGI I don't see how anyone, Republican or Democrat, could vote for Hillary Clinton. It'll be disastrous for the party to nominate her, and even worse for the republic if she wins.
Opposing or equivocating on gay marriage, no matter what the rationale, and some of his other more conservative ideas, will be a tough sell in the general election.
Also is it possible to prevent those provisions from passing?
That shit wasn't gonna happen. And maybe Obama ought to have known better, but he sure isn't exclusively at fault there.
Ignorance is truly bliss.
Critics of the organization would likely be granted zero visibility into their decision making process. Just look how they have treated their own high level employees who voiced concern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake).
It would be a waste of a day. Maybe he could have met with Clapper - the man that perjured himself before Congress. Or Keith Alexander - the profiteer who is making millions off surveillance tech he was developing while head of the NSA. ( <-- That's the guy that made policy decisions on how invasive surveillance should be. FML) If the cronies want his ear: they should come to his office.
If anything, a visit to the NSA would bring negative connotations in the public's eye.
Refusing to take a day to head down and see their presentation isn't a principled stand, it's being concerned with your brand.
The visible nature of a visit would be exploited. He'd be painted as guilty by association. Politics is petty... so much so that, in this case, a superPAC-funded negative campaign ad (running 24-7 in battleground states) would say: "Rand Paul visited the NSA 6 times since he's been a Senator, yet he preaches reform. So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA?'"
Let's keep in mind: there's no way if OP's story or sources are true --- maybe he has met with NSA -- and if he has, I'd hope he wouldn't go around blabbing about it, for the above reason ^^
The bullshit can be written however. If you're taking the subject seriously (and it's a subject that ought to be taken quite seriously), it's your job to hear what the various parties have to say, even if you're sure you won't agree. It's his job as senator.
Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA is part of a senator's job. It would definitely be a president's job.
What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of making principled stands based on willful ignorance. If he intends to run the country, he can't simply pretend the parts of the government he doesn't like don't exist.
Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?
For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.
So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.
This. What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? Please, I beg you, give me something.
The whole mass metadata surveillance program was illegal; what was violated was the Constitution, insofar as, even assuming that the government could Constitutionally act in the manner the executive did, such authority of the Government as a whole would rest on authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution, not to the executive independently.
Or have we already forgotten that the mass metadata surveillance program was ruled by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to not have been authorized by the Patriot Act provisions the NSA relied on for it? [0]
[0] https://www.epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/aclu/Opinion-2nd-Cir.pd...
> SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties. [0]
[0] http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/404994217/appeals-court-rules-...
Yes, you asked two questions, and I answered both of them:
Q. What was violated?
A. The Constitution, in that even if the bulk metadata collection program did not intrude on reserved rights and therefore could Constitutionally be done by the government, it would require authorization by Congress for the Executive Branch to have authority to do it, and, although the Executive has claimed it was authorized by Section 215, it was not, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Q. What was done that was illegal?
A. The entire bulk metadata collection program, for the reasons stated above.
> Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated?
The most fundamental political right on which the entire American system is based: the right to popular sovereignty, that is, the right to a government in which each part of the government exercises only those powers assigned to it by the people (in the case of the US, either directly through the Constitution, or through acts of other parts of government themselves acting through their Constitutional powers.)
This is what I am confused about.
> SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties.
I am not clear on this point. I am wondering if someone can explain to me where in the Constitution something was violated. According to the source I've linked a few times, I don't understand.
To be blunt, everyone seems to throw around "violated the Constitution" without ever citing the Constitution.
Having the justification for a program of this nature be a secret is not compatible with democracy. So if they have something to say they should tell it to The Washington Post.