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.