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

81–90 of 99 posts

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

#81

Post by adamnemecek »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #79
adamnemecek wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty (as long as there are people voluntarily willing to provide care--and there will be--there is no force involved). But going up against the entrenched interests to reign in defense and spying is going to take someone slightly nutty. So at least on this particular issue its a virtue. I'm aware that his politics comes with some, possibly many unsavo…

> Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty

It's not "false and nutty", it's either malicious or outright idiotic.

Just fyi, Bernie Sanders' stance on NSA spying is very similar to Rand Paul's.

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

#82

Post by hackinthebochs »

dragonwriter wrote: post #70
hackinthebochs wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. That is, he supports a weak federal government and the right of states to make these decisions. But either way, the issue of unconstitutional surveillance, and the entrenched interests in favor of it, is by far the single most important issue facing this country. I will be casting my vote with this fact in mind. It is absurd to judge…

> As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. Presumably, this refers to a different Senator Rand Paul than the one that sponsored the Life at Conception Act with the explicitly stated motivation to ban abortion federally. [0] [0] http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fet...

That is unfortunate. But that is a bitter pill I'm willing to swallow for someone I believe will actually reign in surveillance. Backsliding on social issues can be corrected in the future. But there comes a point where the surveillance state is so ubiquitous and their grip on the country so strong, that there's no dialing it back. The direction we're headed with surveillance presents a clear and present danger to America as we know it.

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

#83

Post by zxcvcxz »

adamnemecek wrote: post #77
zxcvcxz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be fair to compare the US to socialized countries like individual European nations because most European nations aren't world powers policing the globe and have much more economic and political stability. Most socialized European nations aren't experiencing social unrest or widespread disagreement about social policies. The US on the other hand has much more disagreement. The USSR consisted of many countr…

K.

It seems to me you don't really have a counter argument to make at all. You're just looking to delegitimize my opinion by not even considering it.

K.

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

#84

Post by hackinthebochs »

adamnemecek wrote: post #81
hackinthebochs wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty (as long as there are people voluntarily willing to provide care--and there will be--there is no force involved). But going up against the entrenched interests to reign in defense and spying is going to take someone slightly nutty. So at least on this particular issue its a virtue. I'm aware that his politics comes with some, possibly many unsavo…

> Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty It's not "false and nutty", it's either malicious or outright idiotic. Just fyi, Bernie Sanders' stance on NSA spying is very similar to Rand Paul's.

If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion.

But the fact that I haven't heard Sanders make surveillance the forefront of his campaign is a bit concerning. Also the fact that he didn't make an appearance at Paul's "filibuster" says quite a bit. Say what you want about how useless the filibuster was, lack of awareness of the facts around the surveillance issue is the biggest factor in the government's favor. Making a very loud and public stand against surveillance has tangible benefits. I was disappointed that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.

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

#85

Post by mikeyouse »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #76
hackuser wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives, very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years (depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party rule. Many, many other things would happen that you probably wo…

It seems the choice is between an Authoritarian left or a small-government right. I'll take small government over monolithic Authoritarianism any day.

Just a reminder, the small government right led by Rand Paul would dramatically expand military spending..

Http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

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

#86

Post by pauleastlund »

hackuser wrote: post #66
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…

> This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives, very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years (depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party rule. Many, many other things would happen that you probably wo…

When you become an utterly dependable one-party voter you really diminish your say in what your party stands for.

More than that, though, if Rand Paul actually got the nomination -- which he almost certainly won't -- and went on to win the general election, that would potentially be a lot bigger than one minor victory in the constant right-vs-left tug-of-war over American government. It would be a political realignment, because the coalition Rand Paul would build and the platform he would run on are not the traditional Republican coalition and platform.

It could be the start of America actually having a pro-liberty party. That tradeoff might be worth it even for folks on the left who lean libertarian.

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

#87

Post by dragonwriter »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #84
adamnemecek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty It's not "false and nutty", it's either malicious or outright idiotic. Just fyi, Bernie Sanders' stance on NSA spying is very similar to Rand Paul's.

If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion. But the fact that I haven't heard Sanders make surveillance the forefront of his campaign is a bit concerning. Also the fact that he didn't make an appe…

> If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion.

Not that you can tell much about who is likely to win the nomination this far out from the first primary (basically, what you can tell now is name recognition prior to significant campaigning, which would mislead as to the winner of the nomination in most elections where there isn't an incumbent President or Vice President in the primary.)

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

#88

Post by MCRed »

dmix wrote: post #42
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…

Just because people downvote you doesn't mean they disagree with you, or what you said is not factual. Hyper-political comments tend to get downvoted on HN in general because of the type of toxic comment threads they breed. Having libertarianism vs democrats categorization, gay rights, and abortion in one thread fits that category quite well.

I'm being brigaded. It's not just this one comment, it's comments on other threads, non-political and non-controversial ones as well.

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

#89

Post by sjwright »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
sjwright wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are absolutely talking about the current legal landscape. If you want to discuss polygamy in a spherical cow universe, that's fine, and I've already said I have no in-principle objection to formalizing polygamy. However, a union between three or more people (or multiple concurrent marriages) is in an engineering sense a very different mechanism. It has more moving parts and more complicated parts. Most critically,…

> However, a union between three or more people (or multiple concurrent marriages) is in an engineering sense a very different mechanism. Forming, adding to, withdrawing from, dissolving, and otherwise handling unions of three or more people, including in dealing with how the members of the union deal with their rights and powers vis-a-vis the property and prerogatives of the union as such between each other and in i…

It is still a very different mechanism.

It is still a very different social construct.

Sorry, but polygamy doesn't get to ride the coattails of gay marriage for free. Despite the howls from conservatives, this slope isn't inherently slippery. You have to change minds before you can discuss changing laws. (And besides, I thought we all agreed the anthrozoologists were next in line? Then NAMBLA. Wait your turn.)

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

#90

Post by serge2k »

MarkPNeyer wrote: post #61
sjwright wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Between two people there is just one relationship. no there isn't. my wife talks to my dad in a way i never have. they get each other. they understand one another, and she respects aspects of him that i didn't know existed until i saw that a lot of what i love about my wife is true of my dad. my wife talks to my mom in a way i haven't understood until recently. my mom is very loving; i never knew how much more lovi…

woah, you said no man is an island 4 times.

It must be extra extra profound and smart sounding now.

Post reply on HN