Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#51

Post by AnthonyMouse »

joshuapants wrote: post #48
MCRed wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

afarrell-- in the early days of the 1992 campaign I felt exactly the way you do, about Bill Clinton. I was a Paul Tsongas supporter then. We all know how that turned out. After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change. It's still early and the old style christian-conservative out-dated positions on foreign policy, "law and order" etc people are still around, but it's clear they are on the out.…

> After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change. Are you sure? Incumbents rarely lose, and it was a very close election. Couple that with the wave the Republicans had in the midterm elections (especially in a few states that typically go blue), I could see the Republican party just thinking it's their turn now. If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their…

> Incumbents rarely lose, and it was a very close election.

But Romney wasn't a hardcore Christian Conservative either.

> If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their base.

The religious right may not love Rand Paul but they hate Hillary Clinton. Most of them would show up to vote against her regardless of who the Republican candidate was. Meanwhile Rand Paul has more appeal with swing voters and libertarian-leaning Democrats than any of the other Republican candidates. If he won the nomination he would have a solid position in the general election.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#52

Post by Ironchefpython »

krapp wrote: post #44
spenvo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If politicians don't care about their brand, they've pursued the wrong career. The visible nature of a visit would be exploited. He'd be painted as guilty by association. Politics is petty... so much so that, in this case, a superPAC-funded negative campaign ad (running 24-7 in battleground states) would say: "Rand Paul visited the NSA 6 times since he's been a Senator, yet he preaches reform. So let's ask you Senato…

>So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA? Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA is part of a senator's job. It would definitely be a president's job. What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of makin…

> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise

Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#53

Post by adamnemecek »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #18

I'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of…

are you aware that rand paul compared public health care to slavery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A ?

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#54

Post by krapp »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #52
krapp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA? Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA is part of a senator's job. It would definitely be a president's job. What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of makin…

> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?

I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant.

For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#55

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #50
krapp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA? Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA is part of a senator's job. It would definitely be a president's job. What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of makin…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#56

Post by sukilot »

MCRed wrote: post #40
meepmorp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's got a shot in the way anyone who declares a candidacy and meets the legal requirements has a shot. If you're talking about odds of getting the nomination (let alone winning the general), then he's got basicly zero chance.

Over a year out, he only trails Clinton by a few points: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge... Consider that Clinton has been on the national stage for 30+ years, while Rand has only been on it for months. That's way more than just "a shot", that's damn good.

In any head-to-head poll, any Republican will poll within a few points of any Democrat.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#57

Post by Ironchefpython »

krapp wrote: post #54
Ironchefpython wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?

I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant. For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.

> I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal

So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#58

Post by sjwright »

jbrown wrote: post #49
MCRed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Libertarians are the original Gay Rights and Abortion Rights supporters, going back to the 1970s. When Obama and Hillary were still anti gay-marriage (in 2013, before it became something they couldn't ignore) and when Bill Clinton was signing the "Defense of Marriage Act" along with 3/4 of Congressional Democrats approval... and for two decades even prior to that, Libertarians were in favor of getting the g…

Gay Marriage Advocates tend to be skittish of embracing poly marriage because that would make them look more extreme. If they can show that their position is not the most extreme one out there, then they have a better chance of seeing their agenda actually become reality. The funny thing is that while poly marriage advocates might not like that right now, in the long run it might actually help them because it will pr…

The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness.

An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test.

A union involving a young child fails the awareness test.

A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests.

A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there is just one relationship. Between three people there are three relationships.) I have no problem with the idea in theory, but it will require a lot of structural change of law to implement and is therefore sufficiently different to warrant a different technical term in law.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#59

Post by krapp »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #57
krapp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant. For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.

> I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.

Yes, probably. Which implies Rand Paul is running for Godfather.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#60

Post by jbrown »

sjwright wrote: post #58
jbrown wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay Marriage Advocates tend to be skittish of embracing poly marriage because that would make them look more extreme. If they can show that their position is not the most extreme one out there, then they have a better chance of seeing their agenda actually become reality. The funny thing is that while poly marriage advocates might not like that right now, in the long run it might actually help them because it will pr…

The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there…

How is exclusivity crucial to marriage in the maximal broadness sense? It might be crucial in the current legal landscape, but that's not what we're talking about here. I tend to think that in the broadest possible sense marriage is just a contract and there's nothing preventing it from including more than two parties. Or, even if you do create a compelling argument for it being a contract between only two people, why should that preclude me from making another similar contract with a different party?
Post reply on HN