Should Rand Paul filibuster CISPA?

[NOVALibertarian]

Much like the drone issue, this is an issue that most people across the board agree on.

[itshappening]

It'll probably pass 90-5 or something.

it passed the house overwhelmingly.

[alucard13mmfmj]

some people say they hope it would get vetoed.

i went.. HAHAHAH.

[sailingaway]

Yes.

And I think it would be rewarded, not just here.

[eleganz]

Its obviously not up to us to decide but it would certainly be glorious. If we thought #standwithrand was huge on the internet for drones, cispa would take him into the stratosphere of the internet if he filibustered it. wow the entire internet would be rooting for him and even the liberals would have to concede that he is doing the right thing, it would shut down a lot of the haters if not just for that day.

should we start an internet meme to encourage him?

[sailingaway]

Its obviously not up to us to decide but it would certainly be glorious. If we thought #standwithrand was huge on the internet for drones, cispa would take him into the stratosphere of the internet if he filibustered it. wow the entire internet would be rooting for him and even the liberals would have to concede that he is doing the right thing, it would shut down a lot of the haters if not just for that day.

should we start an internet meme to encourage him?
then if he doesn't it hurts him.

Even as a political calculation I think he should, though.

[The Goat]

YES

[NY-Dano]

They'll be watching closely. If he does it, he has to be fairly quiet about it leading up to when he steals the floor.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Rand's got to pick his battles wisely and manage his image if he wants to win the big show. Not saying CISPA isn't worthy, but he can't alienate himself and make it easier for the pundits to label him a "kook" and "unelectable" like Ron.

[Christian Liberty]

Does he really have anything to lose?

[tsai3904]

Does he really have anything to lose?

He would be shaming almost 90% of the House Republicans who voted for this. If he was to filibuster, it would have been ideal for the Senate to consider the bill first.

[WhistlinDave]

Absolutely Rand should filibuster it. I don't really trust Obama's promise to veto. (He has a history of breaking promises, big ones.)

[ClydeCoulter]

He would be shaming almost 90% of the House Republicans who voted for this. If he was to filibuster, it would have been ideal for the Senate to consider the bill first.

90% of them NEED to be shamed. I vote YES. And, although it is quite uncomfortable, I hear from my uncle, maybe a catheter this time?

[Christian Liberty]

He would be shaming almost 90% of the House Republicans who voted for this. If he was to filibuster, it would have been ideal for the Senate to consider the bill first.

Then shame them.

Would an Obama veto, even if he did actually do the right thing for one time in his life, actually matter? Its a statist bill, I can imagine it getting 67%...

[tsai3904]

Then shame them.

What viewpoint are you looking at this from? Are you expecting Rand to run for President or are you just trying to defeat CISPA?

If you just want to defeat CISPA, the fact is CISPA most likely won't go anywhere. The Senate didn't even call up the bill after the House passed it last year.

If you want him to further his political agenda, then how would a filibuster of a bill that 90% of the House Republicans just voted for do that?

[Christian Liberty]

What viewpoint are you looking at this from? Are you expecting Rand to run for President or are you just trying to defeat CISPA?

If you just want to defeat CISPA, the fact is CISPA most likely won't go anywhere. The Senate didn't even call up the bill after the House passed it last year.

If you want him to further his political agenda, then how would a filibuster of a bill that 90% of the House Republicans just voted for do that?

I don't think the Presidency is a seriously attainable goal. And honestly, while I'd vote for Rand based on what I've seen so far, I think he would "Lose it" in four years with that much power much like Obama got corrupted after four years. Anyone who actually wants that much power is not trustworthy to hold it. The only reason I trusted Ron is because he didn't give a crap.

Rand should stay where he is and threaten to filibuster anything and everything. Disrupt the senate.

[tsai3904]

Disrupt the senate.

Yea if that's your goal then he has nothing to lose by filibustering.

[WhistlinDave]

I don't think the Presidency is a seriously attainable goal. And honestly, while I'd vote for Rand based on what I've seen so far, I think he would "Lose it" in four years with that much power much like Obama got corrupted after four years. Anyone who actually wants that much power is not trustworthy to hold it. The only reason I trusted Ron is because he didn't give a crap.

Rand should stay where he is and threaten to filibuster anything and everything. Disrupt the senate.

Obama was corrupted long before he took office. He said a lot of nice things before he got elected the first time but they were all lies.

Edit: I also want to add, if good people never seek the power, then we're doomed to always having psychopaths in charge. Government is a beast. The only way to tame that beast, and get it under control, is to get up on top and ride it.

[Christian Liberty]

Obama was corrupted long before he took office. He said a lot of nice things before he got elected the first time but they were all lies.

Edit: I also want to add, if good people never seek the power, then we're doomed to always having psychopaths in charge. Government is a beast. The only way to tame that beast, and get it under control, is to get up on top and ride it.

There's truth to that, but its also a corrupting beast, especially when you've got a bunch of power in one position. I personally think we should focus on taking the House and if possible the senate. Only run purists for the white house and educate. If a Ron Paul wins, great, but its not going to happen.

If Rand does run I'll roll the dice on him, but I acknowledge that I'm rolling the dice.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I don't think the Presidency is a seriously attainable goal. And honestly, while I'd vote for Rand based on what I've seen so far, I think he would "Lose it" in four years with that much power much like Obama got corrupted after four years. Anyone who actually wants that much power is not trustworthy to hold it. The only reason I trusted Ron is because he didn't give a crap.

Rand should stay where he is and threaten to filibuster anything and everything. Disrupt the senate.

Rand obviously believes he's got a decent shot at president or he wouldn't be pushing so hard nationally like we've seen. You must know something Rand doesn't?

The last bit is the exact strategy that got Ron labeled "kook" and yeah we love him for it, because he's right, but it's clear that is not the strategy Rand is taking whether you like it or not. Rand is not his father, he has his own plans and aspirations, and I don't think that makes him a power-hungry evil statist, it just means he has a different path planned than Ron.

[mello]

He should filibuster everything.

[FSP-Rebel]

If Rand does run I'll roll the dice on him, but I acknowledge that I'm rolling the dice.
Hinting at running for prez is what makes him a large part of the national discussion on x, y, & z. This generates untold media coverage of libertarian ideals even when he isn't officially running. Very few gave a flip about Ron and what he was doing until he became part of the national discussion. And yes, Rand has a very good chance at winning the nomination and the presidency. Once he becomes prez, there'll likely be a period of economic downtime and short term pain but it will rebound strongly when he unleashes the free market to do what it does and people will love him for that. The detractors will just sit on their thumbs and spin as usual and they'll become meaningless.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand obviously believes he's got a decent shot at president or he wouldn't be pushing so hard nationally like we've seen. You must know something Rand doesn't?

I have no idea what's in Rand's head. He can probably compromise to the point where he could get in. I suspect that he wouldn't even be worth supporting if he compromised that much. I believe he thinks he has a better shot than I think he has. One of us will be proven wrong, I suppose.

I have a lower opinion of the American People. I think they are mostly statists.


The last bit is the exact strategy that got Ron labeled "kook" and yeah we love him for it, because he's right, but it's clear that is not the strategy Rand is taking whether you like it or not. Rand is not his father, he has his own plans and aspirations, and I don't think that makes him a power-hungry evil statist, it just means he has a different path planned than Ron.

I don't think it makes him power hungry either. I fear what the Presidency might do to him though, if he really does win. Rand has a powerful platform that I think he should use. Then again, that's because I don't think he's going to win. If he wins, and I still recognize him, I'll admit I was wrong.

[Christian Liberty]

Hinting at running for prez is what makes him a large part of the national discussion on x, y, & z. This generates untold media coverage of libertarian ideals even when he isn't officially running. Very few gave a flip about Ron and what he was doing until he became part of the national discussion. And yes, Rand has a very good chance at winning the nomination and the presidency. Once he becomes prez, there'll likely be a period of economic downtime and short term pain but it will rebound strongly when he unleashes the free market to do what it does and people will love him for that. The detractors will just sit on their thumbs and spin as usual and they'll become meaningless.

Hinting at it is smart even if he's not going to do it.

As for him being President, I guess we'll find out in 2016.

Remember that I do still support him.

[jmdrake]

It'll probably pass 90-5 or something.

it passed the house overwhelmingly.

In 2012 it passed the house but failed in the senate. Interestingly enough there is more republican support for CISPA than democratic. Rand should filibuster this and force GOP senators to explain why they support Federal invasion of privacy on the Internet.

[asurfaholic]

Rand's got to pick his battles wisely and manage his image if he wants to win the big show. Not saying CISPA isn't worthy, but he can't alienate himself and make it easier for the pundits to label him a "kook" and "unelectable" like Ron.

I absolutely agree with this. Going around making a big filibuster show about everything is a sure way to turn people off. But I think THIS issue is a very wise battle to fight.

For one, he is going to need the internet for his future campaigns. He cant rely on the media to portray him accurately.

Secondly, it could be rewarding for him to make a big stand on this. Politicially as others have pointed out, people don't want the govt having access to all their history and stuff. But also monetarily, during campaigns, there are lots of small business owners and others who have vested interest in the free press nature of the internet. Getting corporate support isn't all bad.


The only concern I have right now is the effectiveness of this... most people will be focused in on the boston crap.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Yes he should.

[sailingaway]

Rand's got to pick his battles wisely and manage his image if he wants to win the big show. Not saying CISPA isn't worthy, but he can't alienate himself and make it easier for the pundits to label him a "kook" and "unelectable" like Ron.

Go with that. /s

The internet would back him.

[sailingaway]

I absolutely agree with this. Going around making a big filibuster show about everything is a sure way to turn people off. But I think THIS issue is a very wise battle to fight.

For one, he is going to need the internet for his future campaigns. He cant rely on the media to portray him accurately.

Secondly, it could be rewarding for him to make a big stand on this. Politicially as others have pointed out, people don't want the govt having access to all their history and stuff. But also monetarily, during campaigns, there are lots of small business owners and others who have vested interest in the free press nature of the internet. Getting corporate support isn't all bad.




exactly. He has carved out civil liberties as something no one is really against, and some are very much in favor of as the area he pushes, as it seems. He is still careful to do it in a way that he gets leadership on board for, but it seems to me that this is right in that niche.

However, I recognize Rand has a political path he is on for good or ill and I am not counting on it. I do think he should do it.

[NY-Dano]

He should do it and throughout his speech challenge Obama to keep good on his threat and veto the bill. Indies and Libs will love it due to the issue and conservatives will love it because he is telling Obama what to do / forcing his hand.

[AlexAmore]

Internet privacy isn't meaty like drone strikes on American's in America. A filibuster probably won't happen. He shouldn't dilute his filibustering cred with this.

[FriedChicken]

I got a feeling waaaay more Americans, especially older republicans [that Rand needs to continue to win over], will now support CISPA in light of Boston and the recent siege on Watertown ... even though they're unrelated I think the general mood of America for the next couple weeks will be more dependent/admiring/reliant/trusting of the government to do whats right for the people.

Government CISPA is for our own good, so it must be ... right?

Rand has done an awesome job of staying in the headlines for the past couple months. I think right now, unless he's going to go tough on the FBI and visa program, he should stay out of the spotlight till Watertown is yesterday's news.

A few days ago I would have been behind a big showdown over CISPA and now my non-expert opinion is that now is not the time.

[itshappening]

In 2012 it passed the house but failed in the senate. Interestingly enough there is more republican support for CISPA than democratic. Rand should filibuster this and force GOP senators to explain why they support Federal invasion of privacy on the Internet.

I'm afraid it will get 60 votes easily