A New Standoff Has Emerged as the Future of Patriot Act is in Flux

a reply to: Greathouse

Cause it is still there with the no vote that he gave in its entirety.

He could have voted to gut it some and still continue to fight to get rid of it completely.

That is my point, his no vote did nothing but keep it the way it was.
A yes vote was one step closer to his 'goal'.

So is he really working to get rid of it or is it lip service?

And if you are gonna ask me who I am gonna vote for, it will be Bernie for me.

originally posted by: Greathouse

Sen. Rand Paul; “I’m opposed to the Patriot Act and will vote no,” the Kentucky Republican said at the South by Southwest festival, according to US News and World Report.

Brought to you by the Rand Paul for president ATS movement!


(So far I think it just may be me though) ?

Nopers, there are many of us

He isn't his old man, but a sight better than another bush or Clinton on all fronts!!!!

I "stand with rand"

Yes rand you have my permission to use that as your campaign slogan!!!!

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Sremmos80

Why worry about gutting something when you plan on voting against it and it's entirety? You're not really making sense? Why would he vote for a bill that would automatically approve parts of an act that he wants to get rid of entirely?

Because it would eliminate the most expensive and most invasive part of the patriot act!! The part where they collect yours and my data.

I'm going to vote for Rand Paul if he gets the nomination against Hillary. If he doesn't, I'll gladly vote for whoever the D candidate is. But he is moving away from all the positions I like him for, ( defense, prison reform, drug war reform)and he'll never be able to accomplish the things I disagree with( eliminating the dept of education, EPA)
I like what Rand really believes, but I think I'm gonna lose a lot of respect for him during the republican primary

Bernie Sanders would be my first choice

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Greathouse

Cause it is still there with the no vote that he gave in its entirety.

He could have voted to gut it some and still continue to fight to get rid of it completely.

That is my point, his no vote did nothing but keep it the way it was.
A yes vote was one step closer to his 'goal'.

So is he really working to get rid of it or is it lip service?

And if you are gonna ask me who I am gonna vote for, it will be Bernie for me.

It expires this year.

Voting to keep most of it is not getting rid of it.

If it isn't extended it ends.

He is working this angle.

If the law was we are going to burn your house and car, would vote yes to only burning your house?

No, you would stand on principle and vote no.

Because you don't want your house or your car burned.

That is really simple to understand.

He didn't vote yes because that was still voting yes on something he abhors.

He could have voted to end the worst part of it, the expensive part that collects you're one data!
Therefore he aligned himself with Mitch McConnell who plans to vote to extend it all
Many democrats and republicans wanted to end the patriot act entirely, but this was the best they could get that would pass the house and senate

a reply to: Sremmos80

But you are wrong. His no vote was so that parts of the patriot act would not be automatically approved. Regardless of the outcome of the coming vote. In which Rand Paul has crossed party lines to vote against.

So explain to me which end of this argument are you trying to take. That he should have voted for the NSA bill that automatically approved parts of the patriot act.

Or that he should've voted for the NSA bill ???? Then voted against the patriot act while parts of the act were already approved if the previous had passed?

You do understand that if he would've voted for the NSA bill and it was approved it would've left parts of the patriot act standing regardless of the outcome on the patriot act vote.


That's why your logic makes no sense to me.

By the way do you vote? Are you going to vote?

a reply to: HighFive

Then your position must be you don't want the patriot act gone. You just want parts of it gone.

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Sremmos80

Why worry about gutting something when you plan on voting against it and it's entirety? You're not really making sense? Why would he vote for a bill that would automatically approve parts of an act that he wants to get rid of entirely?

Because it would eliminate the most expensive and most invasive part of the patriot act!! The part where they collect yours and my data.

I'm going to vote for Rand Paul if he gets the nomination against Hillary. If he doesn't, I'll gladly vote for whoever the D candidate is. But he is moving away from all the positions I like him for, ( defense, prison reform, drug war reform)and he'll never be able to accomplish the things I disagree with( eliminating the dept of education, EPA)
I like what Rand really believes, but I think I'm gonna lose a lot of respect for him during the republican primary

Bernie Sanders would be my first choice

Most of us care less about the data collection than a lot of the other aspects of the patriot act.

They shouldn't collect my data, that is wrong.

But it doesn't actually effect me honestly, because it won't help them at all.

Now extreme rendition without recourse, just because this guy said so without presenting any evidence....

Talk about Nazi tactics.

Or noknock raiding my house and killing my dog while also causing permanent injury to my children and strip searching the old lady, because the police had "probable cause" without a judge reviewing evidence and issuing a warrant....

Or the TSA humiliating my dying grandmother because her colostomy bag is "suspicious"...

Or locking me away forever in a prison because an actual terrorist misdialed the number and called me...

There are many many negatives to the patriot act.

Mass data is the least of my concerns.

Those same systems aren't money wasted.

It is the cyber age, they can be repurposed easily once the patriot act dies its deserving death.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: HighFive

Then your position must be you don't want the patriot act gone. You just want parts of it gone.

That is how it looks to me as well.

I want the entire thing dead gone shredded burned ashes pissed on turned to fertilizer the plants grown with it shredded and burned and then their ashes also pissed on.

Not one single part of it should remain at the end.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: HighFive

Then your position must be you don't want the patriot act gone. You just want parts of it gone.

I want it all gone! Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham want it all to stay!
The bipartisan bill that passed the House Judiciary Committee was a good first step, and something that would pass the house and senate.
This isn't about Rand Paul pandering to the base, it's about Mitch McConnell stalling for time to better his chances of renewing the patriot act with no changes at all.
I don't see the confusion

a reply to: HighFive

Because he doesn't want to renew any part of it, he wants it to expire coming up. If that vote passed, parts of it would be extended. Now I'm sure he's planning on voting no to whatever McConnell brings as far as extending the act. It makes perfect sense.

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: HighFive

Because he doesn't want to renew any part of it, he wants it to expire coming up. If that vote passed, parts of it would be extended. Now I'm sure he's planning on voting no to whatever McConnell brings as far as extending the act. It makes perfect sense.

And by doing so he lost the opportunity to offer amendments to a reform bill?
It doesn't make sense. Many of the coauthors of this bill want the entire patriot act gone.
This isn't about rand's integrity, like I said he wants to raise the defense budget now??

This isn't a left or right issue, this passed the HOUSE Judiciary Committee, it has support of democrats, libertarian leaning and tea party republicans in the house.

a reply to: johnwick

Me too!!!!!

And I prefer a man that makes his position abundantly clear by his voting record. Over a man (Mitch McConnell) Who I knew was a crook and voted against since his Second election Run as Jefferson County KY. Judge executive.

So when the Patriot act gets renewed it will have been all for nothing and a chance to gut some of it will have been missed.

You can lose the battle with out losing the war.

For the record I want the whole thing gone as well. But to think that will happen in fel swoop, let's get real.

Chipping away at it is better then keeping it the way it is.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You know that might well happen. But for me I will trade that temporarily to find a candidate I am completely positive on in his stance.

Things don't always happen overnight. But it is nice when you can find A politician that will stand behind his word on his own merits.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Sremmos80

You know that might well happen. But for me I will trade that temporarily to find a candidate I am completely positive on in his stance.

Things don't always happen overnight. But it is nice when you can find A politician that will stand behind his word on his own merits.

I'm having a hard time figuring out where he stands, especially on foreign policy.

On Iran: challenged his republican colleagues in January on their hawkish stances against diplomacy, 2 months later signed the letter to derail diplomacy

On Russia: after Kiev fell he called for " respectful relations" . He said " some on our side are stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time, and I don't think that's a good idea"
Months later he said Putin should be "punished", invoking "our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia's latest aggression"

Proposed eliminating all foreign aid, including Israel. Saying it undermined " Isreal's ability to conduct foreign policy " then the neocons lashed out at him. Then he voted to increase aid to Israel and boasted about it a statement issued by his office. Then he said he never proposed any legislation targeting Isreal's aid?

He wrote an op-Ed in the WSJ on the Islamic State crisis: "what would air strikes accomplish? Why should we choose a side?" Yet it wasn't long before he was advocating for air strikes and calling for a declaration of war against ISIS.

This strategy threatens to nullify his attempt to broaden his appeal beyond conservative voters and alienates the libertarian base and anti war voters like myself

He is no Ron Paul!

Double post.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: johnwick

Me too!!!!!

And I prefer a man that makes his position abundantly clear by his voting record. Over a man (Mitch McConnell) Who I knew was a crook and voted against since his Second election Run as Jefferson County KY. Judge executive.

Exactly!!!
Look at his history!!!

He is one of few, like his old man that actually has morals and votes on those same morals every single time.

I will never vote a flipflopper who votes to stay in office.

I want actual morals here.

Never ever ever votes for these things.

a reply to: HighFive

Of coarse he's not Ron Paul!!


He's Ron Paul's son you really should keep up with such facts.

a reply to: johnwick

Many libertarians or workingmen Republicans are butthurt from what happened to Ron Paul. Well it's a new day, I didn't hear about Rand Paul until the early 90s. I followed him since then and his message has never changed. " smaller government, less taxes" with that policy you can see his father's imprint on the man.

What irritates me the most on this site. Are the defeatist and the crybabies saying why vote it doesn't matter?? I had two people in this thread dis'ing the man's position without even the courtesy of a wiki search of his name.


I'm not replying to anyone until they can at least do him that courtesy. It will amaze them in the long-standing opinions he has had that virtually coincide with every complaint I've heard on this site.

I agree it might not be this year, it may not be for years after that. But if he keeps proving to the people he believes in the message he is giving it will definitely happen.