This wasn't a filibuster

Badger Paul said:
Good for you. Proceed to stick head in sand.

Hell, maybe Rand realized this was all a sham and decided not to waste his time. Great! Now wish he'd make the same decision about his campaign.

Trolling for Cruz or Trump? Hardly. Pissed off were going to get a half-assed effort more about fundraising and making money off the fundraising? Yep.
Click to expand...

I've got a humble suggestion for you. If it's all a sham and a waste of time, why don't you make the same decision about posting on this forum? What are you accomplishing by whining like a child about things that nobody has any control over?

I suggested your go over Cruz's (or Trump's if you prefer) camp because they're more of a mind to demand the moon on a stick, which is what you seem to be asking for. If you can't hack the long game, take the train.
 
Rand is not gonna win every fight against the lame duck President whispering "shutdown" with a McConnell and now Ryan around -
aka the "Washington Cartel" as Cruz calls them.



.
 
It never was going to be an official filibuster due to Senate rules. I was hoping he wouldn't promote it as such, but oh well. He did help himself overall and did a good service.
 
jmdrake said:
Okay. So it was 41 minutes longer than the OP article.
Click to expand...

No, the OP is correct. That 1 hour speech was another speech. The speech that was supposed to be the filibuster speech was 19 minutes.

Still, a 1 hour speech is not a filibuster. Ted Cruz today gave a 1 hour and a half speech which was just a regular speech, not even labelled a filibuster.
 
Found Cruz's speech:


Ted Cruz's reading of Sam I Am was nicely delivered with feeling and appropriate emphasis placed on the poignant verses of the text. Despite a few stutters and mis-read words i'd say his reading was impactful and well delivered, making ample use of the vocal scale. With some more practice he could really become quite the orator. I give his reading a 5/10. I deducted 1 point for the stutters and 4 points for not showing the book's illustrations during his reading. Dr.Seuss' illustrations are easily one of the major parts of the experience and should be shared with the audience. Had he not overlooked this critical technical hiccup i'd easily have given him a 9/10.
Click to expand...
 
JK/SEA said:
so, instead of attacking the mother-fuckers that passed this budget bill, we attack the only motherfucker thats TRYING do do something. Those people are the real mother-fuckers, so you can all fuck off. You know who you are.

pathetic.

I stayed up and watched Rand battle these assholes while you motherfuckers were in bed.
Click to expand...


This x1000000

Fuckin kidding me? Let's criticize Rand for this? Really??

Fail.
 
Well I tell you all what, you all call Amber Phillips at the Washington Post and demand she retract this story if indeed a lie (not misinterpretation, an outright falsehood) and I will certainly apologize for posting it.

However, even if it was one hour, in the annals of Senate filibusters it's a drop in the bucket. There have been entire speeches that were not filibusters that went longer. It's hard to fight the good fight when the fix is in (all set-up by the same man who endorsed him for President. Glad to see it meant something:rolleyes:) I understand that. But what pisses me off is a another lackluster effort in the wake of a build up. I'm sure some were expecting an epic showdown, lasting for over 24 hours and hoping that talk radio hosts and others would whip the old outrage machine together and flood Capitol Hill with phone calls and find six Senators to change their minds and stop the budget. Didn't happen, not even close.

Why I'm trying to prevent is grassroots supporters being taken advantage again both emotionally and physically. My Lord, people in Louisiana got their bones broken trying to get Ron Paul delegates at the state conventions in 2012 only to have them traded away in a crooked-assed backroom deal to keep Ron Paul from being nominated from the floor. I don't want to see that ever again. I don't want to see the campaign rake in contributions for an effort they weren't prepared to give or even try to do. You see what I'm getting at? If there are still people connected with Rand who see this as a way to make money by staging stunts like this and then not have any meaningful impact, I want no part of it. But I will blow the whistle if only to shine the light on if not purge such grifters from the Revolution.

As for being a troll, all I can say is if standing for six hours in 96 degree heat handing out Ron Paul brochures during the Iowa Straw Poll of '07 and getting signatures for him in minus -11 degree weather in January of 2012 to get him on the Wisconsin primary ballot isn't evidence enough of devotion, then I don't know what is. All I know is I smell something rotten and I'm going to say so.
 
Badger Paul said:
Well I tell you all what, you all call Amber Phillips at the Washington Post and demand she retract this story if indeed a lie (not misinterpretation, an outright falsehood) and I will certainly apologize for posting it.

However, even if it was one hour, in the annals of Senate filibusters it's a drop in the bucket. There have been entire speeches that were not filibusters that went longer. It's hard to fight the good fight when the fix is in (all set-up by the same man who endorsed him for President. Glad to see it meant something:rolleyes:) I understand that. But what pisses me off is a another lackluster effort in the wake of a build up. I'm sure some were expecting an epic showdown, lasting for over 24 hours and hoping that talk radio hosts and others would whip the old outrage machine together and flood Capitol Hill with phone calls and find six Senators to change their minds and stop the budget. Didn't happen, not even close.

Why I'm trying to prevent is grassroots supporters being taken advantage again both emotionally and physically. My Lord, people in Louisiana got their bones broken trying to get Ron Paul delegates at the state conventions in 2012 only to have them traded away in a crooked-assed backroom deal to keep Ron Paul from being nominated from the floor. I don't want to see that ever again. I don't want to see the campaign rake in contributions for an effort they weren't prepared to give or even try to do. You see what I'm getting at? If there are still people connected with Rand who see this as a way to make money by staging stunts like this and then not have any meaningful impact, I want no part of it. But I will blow the whistle if only to shine the light on if not purge such grifters from the Revolution.

As for being a troll, all I can say is if standing for six hours in 96 degree heat handing out Ron Paul brochures during the Iowa Straw Poll of '07 and getting signatures for him in minus -11 degree weather in January of 2012 to get him on the Wisconsin primary ballot isn't evidence enough of devotion, then I don't know what is. All I know is I smell something rotten and I'm going to say so.
Click to expand...

well, if you 'smell' something, you might want to check your underwear.
 
Of course not. I just wanted to know where you were at. It's easier to figure things out that way.
 
Filibusters, by definition, are delay tactics. Since the rules change in 1917 (Woodrow Wilson anyone?) it is some tactic to delay invoking cloture, which ends debate. It is almost never a talking filibuster. It's about strategy and leverage.
Here is the process: McConnell files a motion for unanimous consent to end debate (this is an important part of the rule that Wilson got changed). Paul objects and invokes the filibuster. The rule then calls for a delay of 1 day + 1hour to continue debate. Prior to Wilson, Senators could drag debate out for months. Republicans were doing this in 1917 to delay the vote to go to war.
At the end of that time, it takes 60 votes to break the filibuster, which is why Rand needed 41 nays to continue the filibuster (delay).
Here is the strategy: Push the opposing side (in this case McConnell) as close to the default date (November 5?) so he can try to get public pressure to vote against the bill. The test vote was to see if Rand's filibuster could be broken.
The poster who started this thread needs to do some homework on what a filibuster actually is and why it can be used to delay/derail bad legislation. Rand did the right thing and 63 of his colleagues didn't.
 
Well thanks for the civics lesson but here's where the rub comes in. As I said a couple of days ago, if 79 House Republicans can be found to vote for the budget deal, 14 Republicans in the Senate could be found too. So why engage in fillibuster when you knew you didn't have the votes to sustain it? And if you thought you could convince some of your colleagues to change their minds through the fillibuster process to block the bill, wouldn't speaking a little longer than (whatever it was, an hour, 19 minutes, who knows?) be necessary, especially when your campaign loudly proclaims the fact there's going to be a fillibuster for Rand and tries to use it for publicity and fundraising purposes?

I'm just tired of these half-assed stunts. Enough already! Run like you mean it.
 
Last edited:
Badger Paul said:
Here's how the grand #standwithRand filibuster went Wednesday night into Thursday:

(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/po...10/stand_with_randfor_nineteen_mi058381.php#_

"Parliamentary geeks will point out that, according to Senate rules, to successfully block passage of a bill by talking, Paul would have had to start his filibuster on Wednesday night. His Kentucky colleague, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), effectively scheduled things so Wednesday night’s debate prevented Paul from successfully halting the bill. So what he was doing wasn’t technically a filibuster and was doomed from the start.

That’s fine. But Paul’s campaign made sure to promote this as a typical #StandWithRand filibuster. Except for the, you know, actual talking part. It seems that in their version, they were hoping Paul’s stirring 19-minute speech would convince 40 other senators to join him and vote “no” on the deal.

They didn’t. The budget passed in the wee hours Friday morning, 64-35. And it’s worth noting here that Paul could have continued talking, but he didn’t.

19 minutes. That's it. That's all. How much you want to make a bet Jimmy Stewart's on-screen filibuster went longer in Mr. Smith goes to Washington?

Oh yes Mitch, our erstwhile Rand Paul endorser, certainly fixed things to make sure Paul wouldn't screw the budget deal up. Of course I said he would do just that the other day. He's not stupid.

But Rand did have his moment and could have extended it too. He chose not too. He's makes a grand gesture against what should be a heretical budget deal and gets people worked up believing its going to be a key game changing moment in the campaign and well.....meh!

The filibuster is was joke and the campaign, sadly is becoming a joke or a parody of the last eight years. But the real losers aren't Rand and his political team. They're taken care off. It's you and me who've been suckered into thinking this was a serious campaign for the White House.

The only way this gets fixed is if Rand announces what he really wants to do and soon. I would prefer no campaign and honesty rather than money-sucking, business enterprise all the way through March with no intention of winning anything. Find some other customers.
Click to expand...
The senate rules limit debate to one hour at a time for a total of 25 hours. The article fails to highlight Paul's true strategy, which was to delay the vote as long as possible for the public to be able to apply pressure. If 6 additional (traitorous) Republicans had voted nay to cloture then it would have been delayed another 25 hours. And so on until you get to Nov 5, or whatever day the debt ceiling is reached and we go into default (which is a fantasy of another thread).
i wish they still taught civics... :(
And one more thing...the Senate was not in session for much longer after Paul's first speech.
 
Last edited:
"The senate rules limit debate to one hour at a time for a total of 25 hours. The article fails to highlight Paul's true strategy, which was to delay the vote as long as possible for the public to be able to apply pressure. If 6 additional (traitorous) Republicans had voted nay to cloture then it would have been delayed another 25 hours. And so on until you get to Nov 5, or whatever day the debt ceiling is reached and we go into default (which is a fantasy of another thread).
i wish they still taught civics... "

No kidding! And it takes longer than a brief speech to do it. What pressure was on those GOP Senators to vote against the deal? Hmmm? Hear anything on talk radio? Limabugh say anything? National Review? Glenn Beck? Bill O'Reilly? Hmmm?

Reminds me of an old saying: "You want some, ya got to bring some!"
 
Badger Paul said:
Well thanks for the civics lesson but here's where the rub comes in. As I said a couple of days ago, if 79 House Republicans can be found to vote for the budget deal, 14 Republicans in the Senate could be found too. So why engage in fillibuster when you knew you didn't have the votes to sustain it? And if you thought you could convince some of your colleagues to change their minds through the fillibuster process to block the bill, wouldn't speaking a little longer than (whatever it was, an hour, 19 minutes, who knows?) be necessary, especially when your campaign loudly proclaims the fact there's going to be a fillibuster for Rand and tries to use it for publicity and fundraising purposes?

I'm just tired of these half-assed stunts. Enough already! Run like you mean it.
Click to expand...
Actually it was a smart and principled move. Part of the strategy is having all of the Republicans who voted yay on the record robbing social security with the Dems. As his constituent I'm pretty pleased that he chose to do this. I watched his Twitter feed and I really didn't see a lot of fundraising. The delay gives the American people time to hear about it so they could let their Senators hear about it. He did a pretty fair job of dominating the news cycle all day, the day after a debate that he had very little opportunity to highlight that he is a fiscally responsible leader. NO ONE on that stage focused their time on the stage to highlight the fraud that DC was getting ready to perpetrate against we the people except Rand!
His staff was right to promote the hell out of it because Rand demonstrated what our Senators are supposed to do with their time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top