Is Rand Going to Filibuster ISIS Funding Bill Tomorrow...

[RonPaulMall]

News said Harry Reid is bringing this monstrosity for a vote tomorrow. Is Rand planning on making a huge show against it? Even if he can't stop it, taking a high profile stand on a policy that is practically assured of being a disaster would pay huge political dividends come 2016. I've read a lot of general stuff Rand has been putting out about the ISIS issue lately, but I've heard nothing about his specific stance on this bill. Am I missing something or is it true he hasn't said anything about the bill yet?

[specsaregood]

News said Harry Reid is bringing this monstrosity for a vote tomorrow. Is Rand planning on making a huge show against it? Even if he can't stop it, taking a high profile stand on a policy that is practically assured of being a disaster would pay huge political dividends come 2016. I've read a lot of general stuff Rand has been putting out about the ISIS issue lately, but I've heard nothing about his specific stance on this bill. Am I missing something or is it true he hasn't said anything about the bill yet?

If you mean a talking filibuster, then the answer is No. At the very least because he won't be given the chance to do so.

[tangent4ronpaul]

If you mean a talking filibuster, then the answer is No. At the very least because he won't be given the chance to do so.

Why do you think so? the not being given a chance part.

He made very clear this afternoon that his main gripe was that what that committee, congress and the president were doing was unconstitutional. He wants a decloration of war to be put to a vote in congress.

given the chance, he might. probably would.

-t

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

But if we declare war on ISIS and Harry Reid keeps funding ISIS, than Harry Reid would be convicted of treason, and that would just be too inconvenient. Especially crammed in the same cell with McCain, Hillary, Kerry, Graham, etc.

[r3volution 3.0]

If this is the bill to provide funding to the (mythical) moderate Syrian rebels, then I certainly expect Rand to vote against it.

He's been unambiguously opposed to such a policy from the start.

[specsaregood]

Why do you think so? the not being given a chance part.

because as he explained before, by Senate rules in order to do a talking filibuster you have to have control of the floor; an opportunity that rarely occurs. his one talking filibuster was basically the result of him sneaking onto the floor while all the elite senators were getting ready for a big brouhaha at the whitehouse.

[CPUd]

They also changed the cloture rules to make it harder to get control of the floor.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The Daily Beast's hit piece said Rand's office told them he would give an "extended speech" on this matter TODAY - Wednesday. Maybe it will be tomorrow if the debate is tomorrow. Has anyone haeard anything?

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I reckon he will speak against the billfrom the floor but not have a chance to filibuster it.

NOTE: the House/Boehner passed the bill to fund the rebels as part of the same bill to fund the US govt. So it's another "government shutdown" if the Senate doesn't fund the new war.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I reckon he will speak against the billfrom the floor but not have a chance to filibuster it.

NOTE: the House/Boehner passed the bill to fund the rebels as part of the same bill to fund the US govt. So it's another "government shutdown" if the Senate doesn't fund the new war.

The only acceptable solution, then, is to shut the entire thing down.

[TomtheTinker]

I wish Shiff was in the senate..if only for the reason he likes to hear himself talk he would never leave the floor.