I don't like Rand Paul. I don't like his politics, I don't like his blatant partisan lies, and I don't even like Kentucky. And I hate political grandstanding.
But today Paul did something which I have to respect, even if it means gritting my teeth. He staged an old-fashioned talk-til-you-drop filibuster.
I've been annoyed for years at the depths to which the filibuster has sunk. It used to be that if you were going to try to block a bill from coming to a vote without a 60-vote supermajority, you had to actually get up and talk, forcing the Senate to vote repeatedly to cut off debate. If they couldn't come up with 60 votes, the "debate" would continue until the speaker either could no longer talk, or until one party was able to muster the 60 votes to cut off debate. It was a useful tactic for calling attention to an issue that the minority felt was serious enough that it warranted the risk of public embarrassment. Anyone who has seen "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" knows what the old-fashioned filibuster looks like.
But for the past decade or so, the minority party in the Senate has simply had to threaten to filibuster in order to immediately change the simple majority (51 votes) needed to bass a bill into a supermajority. I have often said that this should be illegal. If you want to filibuster, you should by-gawd be forced to get your ass up there and talk, not just threaten to talk.
Today Rand Paul got his ass up there and talked. And talked, and talked, and - talked. And even though I think he's a dangerous demagogue and a grandstanding liar, I have to applaud his effort. Hell, he even chose an important issue to filibuster over, instead of some tea-party imaginary whine: he wants the President to clarify the administration's legal stance on drone strikes against US citizens on US soil. This is something Obama has been coy about, which is simply not acceptable.
Now, I can see circumstances under which law enforcement might legally and ethically employ drones against US citizens on US soil. In a firefight/standoff, for example, using a drone might be the best way to take out a shooter without endangering police; or in a Waco or Ruby Ridge situation, a drone might allow for accuracy that a frontal assault cannot. But the administration needs to spell out exactly which circumstances would warrant the use of armed drones, and which would not.
So kudos to Rand Paul for pulling an old-fashioned filibuster to bring this issue front-and-center. Good job, Senator. You grandstanding right-wing fuck.
Unfortunately... yeah, I respect him for this.
Interesting. I think it's good that we can still respect a person's actions even though we don't agree with them on some things. It's how we get along in society.
Rand Paul will never get my respect till he gets that F--ing rug off his F--ing head...!!!!
Good for him and the others that have joined him. We do need to have a serious discussion about whether or not any president can order the deaths of US citizens especially here in the US. The obvious answer is hell no.
I don't like Paul at all. But I honestly can't see a situation that justifies the use of drones in the continental U.S. for air strikes. Even surveillance is a bit iffy. For voicing that concern, I will give him credit.
Quote from: "Davka"I don't like Rand Paul. I don't like his politics, I don't like his blatant partisan lies, and I don't even like Kentucky. And I hate political grandstanding.
...
Today Rand Paul got his ass up there and talked. And talked, and talked, and - talked. And even though I think he's a dangerous demagogue and a grandstanding liar, I have to applaud his effort. Hell, he even chose an important issue to filibuster over, instead of some tea-party imaginary whine: he wants the President to clarify the administration's legal stance on drone strikes against US citizens on US soil. This is something Obama has been coy about, which is simply not acceptable.
I also applaud it. I've been wary of him ever since he back-stabbed his dad in the 2012 presidential race.
But I also see the connection between his positions (the ones you despise) and the important issue to filibuster over. Everyone who doesn't like him but grudgingly respects this particular act isn't seeing that connection. Too bad.
Don't worry about the connection between this and any other positions he holds. It is enough that people can call bullshit on extrajudicial executions here in the states. More please.
It always amazes me when people respect and applaud a tactic specifically designed to obstruct the proper flow of the judicary system in order to get their way when officially, they shouldn't be getting their way.
I detest Rand Paul, but this is one hell of a good post, Dav.
Quote from: "Plu"It always amazes me when people respect and applaud a tactic specifically designed to obstruct the proper flow of the judicary system in order to get their way when officially, they shouldn't be getting their way.
I think you should research the purpose of the filibuster then, especially since he is one of the rare few who is using it properly.
QuoteA filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as talking out a bill,[1] and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.
Yeah, that sounds like a tactic specifically designed to obstruct the proper flow of the judicary system to me.
If its a part of the judiciary system, then it can't obstruct it
I guess that just makes it a dumb part of the judicary system, then.
Quote from: "Plu"I guess that just makes it a dumb part of the judicary system, then.
I think it has its rare usefulness, but I agree it is generally a harmful part of the law.
Sorry, that was a bit of a grammatical nitpick.
I can think off the top of my head many reasons for drone strikes in the US.. A State, municipality or group of or any combination or group of extremists attempt to seize power by force..civil war, etc.. Drones would be preferable to carpet bombing by a fleet of B52's from 100,000 feet over a major city or even heavy artillery bombardment. While the filibuster has its place this was little more than stoking fears when the above.mentioned could have been brought out iñ the first 5 minutes and he could have avoided the whole kabooki show.
If anyone thinks Paul would do anything differently as president then please seek drug treatment immediately.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteA filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as talking out a bill,[1] and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.
Yeah, that sounds like a tactic specifically designed to obstruct the proper flow of the judicary system to me.
*sigh*
Come on, you're smarter than that!
3 branches of government: Legislative, judicial, and executive. The Senate is part of the legislative branch (the House being the other part). The judiciary is a completely different branch - specifically, the Supreme Court. So the filibuster - a tactic used to extend debate or block passage of a bill in the Senate - has no bearing whatsoever on the judiciary system.
The filibuster is a result of the internal rules of Senate procedure. The Senate has a chance to change those rules via simple majority every 4 years - in fact, they did just that in January, making it more difficult to flat-out prevent an up-or-down vote via filibuster. The rules which makes a filibuster possible is actually a good rule, IMO. It prevents a 51-seat majority for simply ramming bills through without debate, by forcing the Senate to listen to the minority opinion until they can muster enough votes to bring the bill to a vote. As long as legislators are forced to actually get up and declare that they are blocking the vote until they are heard, it's a useful thing. Truly bad bills can be brought to the attention of the public this way, and the public in turn can pressure their majority representatives to kill or amend the bill.
The way Rand Paul used the filibuster is the correct way. The way it's been used 99% of the time since 2000 is the wrong way.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I can think off the top of my head many reasons for drone strikes in the US.. A State, municipality or group of or any combination or group of extremists attempt to seize power by force..civil war, etc.. Drones would be preferable to carpet bombing by a fleet of B52's from 100,000 feet over a major city or even heavy artillery bombardment. While the filibuster has its place this was little more than stoking fears when the above.mentioned could have been brought out iñ the first 5 minutes and he could have avoided the whole kabooki show.
If anyone thinks Paul would do anything differently as president then please seek drug treatment immediately.
Rand Paul is a devotee of his namesake, Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was a shortsighted whack-job.
But the refusal of the President to spell out exactly when he would using armed drones against American citizens is unacceptable. And while 5 minutes would have brought the issue to the attention of the Senate, it would
not have brought it to the attention of the American people - which was Paul's intention. The Senate already knows about the drone issue. The public was fairly ignorant until Paul forced it into the news.
QuoteCome on, you're smarter than that!
Sorry, non-american and non-native english speaker. Confusion of terms, nothing more.
I started out on the fence on this issue after reading about it on Reddit this morning. I'm starting to lean more towards it being nonsense and Rand Paul is being a grandstanding douche drumming up press space for a 2016 run.
Quote from: "Davka"But the refusal of the President to spell out exactly when he would using armed drones against American citizens is unacceptable. And while 5 minutes would have brought the issue to the attention of the Senate, it would not have brought it to the attention of the American people - which was Paul's intention. The Senate already knows about the drone issue. The public was fairly ignorant until Paul forced it into the news.
Should the President have to spell out whether tanks will be used rolling into your local town? How about whether armed F-15 attacks might be used on US soil? Battleships bombarding Myrtle Beach maybe? No, cause it would be completely absurd to expect him to have to answer to that to Congress and would be a giant strawman anti-government circlejerk. Just like it is with drones. But the President would probably also be a bit coy in answering the same question about using fighter jets on US soil because a very real instance where it could be a possibility, necessity even if they had figured it out quick enough, even though nobody would've ever considered using them here before, happened 12 years ago. So no, the President probably isn't going to say there is absolutely no possible hypothetical scenario where armed drones could
maybe be used domestically.
I respect the fact that he actually used filibuster the way it's supposed to be used. But this is grandstanding using an extremely hypothetical situation that could maybe happen if a crazy string of events happened, used as if average citizens on the street are in imminent danger of a missile being fired up their ass at the corner of Main & Market. But then again, the whole arguments regarding drones have taken such an absurd turn out of the realm of reality and rational thought, up to and including being compared to genocide on this very forum, that I guess it shouldn't be surprising.
Wonder if Rand would've been filibustering in 2006 to demand President Bush answer whether targetted F-16 strikes would be used on American soil after al-Zarqawi was killed in just such an attack. Or during Desert Storm when all those smart bomb onboard camera videos were shown on the news every evening taking out specific targets.
ETA:
QuoteRep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas, last month introduced a bill to regulate domestic drones much like the government regulates wiretaps.
It would require officials to obtain a warrant in order to perform many kinds of surveillance with those drones. Further, it would prohibit law enforcement drones from being equipped with firearms or explosives in U.S. airspace.
This is actually a fairly legitimate use of congressional time regarding drones rather than wasting a whole day blocking an Obama nomination vote for political purposes by talking about Predator drones firing Hellfire missiles all over the US.
Bingo BATM.. It's grandstanding and NOTHING more. Rand got to get up in front of cameras and pretend to give a shit about an absurd hypothetical if not 'Out of the Ashes' scenario and expect Obama to come right out and say that under no possible scenario EVER would the US EVER consider drone strikes in the US. To bad Holder didn't say, 'Yes Mr Paul..we have military plans this very moment to bomb YOU if you don't STFU and stop pretending to give a shit about anyone except your own political grandstanding ass.'
It is indeed a hypothetical but to be fair, it was Holder's hypothetical. There's a good chance he would have been filibustering over some of Bush's shit. His daddy was pretty consistent in his non-intervention stance. There are some people who call bullshit on stuff like this regardless of who is president. Paul from the right and Greenwald from the left to name a couple.
I remember bitching about the patriot act and domestic wiretapping back in the day and getting a big ass amen chorus from my liberal friends. Not so much now that the presidency has changed hands.
I just saw where Lindsay Grahm and John McCain are blasting Paul over this. Looks like he hit a nerve with the neocons.
To be sure it goes on in both parties, but Rand is part of the faction holding up legislation by use of the phoney filibuster demanding a super majority on EVERYTHING and suddenly he's laying claim to the 'traditional' filibuster as IF he's wrapping himself in the constitution... it reeks of bullshit because it IS bullshit..
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteCome on, you're smarter than that!
Sorry, non-american and non-native english speaker. Confusion of terms, nothing more.
Ah, that explains it. I wondered why you would make such a simple mistake. My apologies - carry on!
Quote from: "billhilly"It is indeed a hypothetical but to be fair, it was Holder's hypothetical. There's a good chance he would have been filibustering over some of Bush's shit. His daddy was pretty consistent in his non-intervention stance. There are some people who call bullshit on stuff like this regardless of who is president. Paul from the right and Greenwald from the left to name a couple.
I remember bitching about the patriot act and domestic wiretapping back in the day and getting a big ass amen chorus from my liberal friends. Not so much now that the presidency has changed hands.
Yeah, I have to say, this is the most disappointing area in Obama's presidency. I had high hopes that he would roll back some of W's executive power-grabs and theft of our basic rights, but it hasn't happened. The patriot act is still in effect, warrantless wiretapping goes on unimpeded (and now with the blessing of our conservative SCOTUS), and nary a peep out of the left. This stuff was an obscene infringement of our rights under W, and it's still an obscene infringement of our rights now.
QuoteI just saw where Lindsay Grahm and John McCain are blasting Paul over this. Looks like he hit a nerve with the neocons.
Heh. Those clowns are so fucking transparent.