This Rand Paul filibuster...

[issue9mm]

it's pretty exciting, right?

[Pie]

A genuine filibuster for a genuine reason is refreshing. Pie is tired of the hold down vote non-filibuster filibuster.

[issue9mm]

I love how Ted Cruz was basically just reading "Henry V" for awhile to give Rand Paul a break.  Also, reading tweets in the Senate to stall for time?  Brilliant. 

I have no idea how effective this will be, but I can very easily see Harry Reid on the phone with Obama begging him to shut Rand Paul up.

[Ramz]

whats happening exactly? I don't even

[issue9mm]

Put very simply, Rand Paul has launched a filibuster until he gets some kind of official promise from the president that he won't (or is not allowed to) perform drone strikes of American citizens on American soil.  

Effectively, once a Senator has the floor (for whatever purpose) they can't cede it without a vote of cloture.  A cloture is a supermajority vote that just says "we all agree to end debate here".  

Abusing that fact, Rand Paul has been just talking, fairly eloquently, to keep all the members of Senate hostage while he holds the floor, preventing any other business from getting done.  

[IamtheRock3]

while I generaly dont like the new presecent of filibuster a nomination. Think doing that pretty much happen the first time this second term with Hagel

Called Bullshit on Hagel

But this less Bullshit

1) its an actul honest to god filibuster..where you have to get up and talk. So your kind of putting your ass on the line a bit

2) Its a decent reason

[issue9mm]

Well, Rand could have kept the filibuster for Hagel ongoing forever (if he really wanted to), but at least according to him, he was just wanting to know more, and didn't intend for it to be a forever thing.

This one is completely different, and actually has a purpose.  I think that ultimately, he'll vote to approve John Brennan for the CIA, as he believes in the Constitutional authority for a president to make appointments for office.  That said, yeah, it's a decent reason, and it's a legit filibuster, and they've already bested a Harry Reid cloture attempt. 

[Ramz]

Put very simply, Rand Paul has launched a filibuster until he gets some kind of official promise from the president that he won't (or is not allowed to) perform drone strikes of American citizens on American soil.  

Effectively, once a Senator has the floor (for whatever purpose) they can't cede it without a vote of cloture.  A cloture is a supermajority vote that just says "we all agree to end debate here".  

Abusing that fact, Rand Paul has been just talking, fairly eloquently, to keep all the members of Senate hostage while he holds the floor, preventing any other business from getting done.  

Sounds quite amazing.

[issue9mm]

They've been talking for like, 12 hours straight now, basically.  Some of the other Senators in agreement with the cause have been 'tagging in' and killing time for Rand to rest.  Mostly it's been Ted Cruz, but Marco Rubio and a bunch of others have started chipping in. 

The trick is that Paul must acknowledge their interjections without ceding the floor.  If he were to accidentally cede the floor, his filibuster could get a filibuster. 

Effectively, at this point, they're just drilling in the message over and over while making life very inconvenient for the other attendees that aren't on board, or are in objection (like Harry Reid), in the hopes of wearing them down until they either come up with some kind of legislation requiring the president to clarify, or until (more likely) other democratic leaders wear down and join in with the cause to pressure Obama to provide an answer. 

Filibusters are generally the most fun things to watch, cause they're just obviously bullshitting.  Marco Rubio quoted Wiz Khalifa earlier, and quoted *numerous* passages from the Godfather, at one point even acknowledging that he had no idea how his quote related to the issue at hand. 

[IamtheRock3]

Actully dont see Obama or Dem crew backing down on this. They may just let him talking and see

1)One president generaly dont like declassify information they said were classified unless they really have to. As in some HUGE pressure from the public.

2) Dems can always say "I beleave president should show info on the drones...but this is not the way to get it." Be sure to hear the word "UNPRECIDENTED OBSTRUCTION" a lot.

3) Public got a good idea somethign shady was going on..let they dont give a shit. They SHOULD give a shit...shock that they don't. But there you have it. So not much political pressure. So it a good chance the filibuster may come off as silly.

4) The republicans use filibuster to much. Where its a CRY wolf scenario. There an actul wolf..as in the drone thing is fucked up. But people pretty much grown tired of filibustering. where it like "Oh someone filibustering...much be a day that ends in Y"

5) it because of that dems may not be worn down, cause they dont want to make this a habit for EVERY nomination the president has. Even if they may have a decent reason this time.

So dont see this getting anywhere

Also how much does the guy there filibustering have to do with the drones.

[issue9mm]

Actully dont see Obama or Dem crew backing down on this. They may just let him talking and see

I don't really either. 

1)One president generaly dont like declassify information they said were classified unless they really have to. As in some HUGE pressure from the public.

So, 1) the use of drone force is classified, but is subject to oversight.  2) The overseer is Congress.  By not revealing the memos, Obama is circumventing Congress completely, and is failing to reveal documents to the very body he is supposed to reveal them to.

2) Dems can always say "I beleave president should show info on the drones...but this is not the way to get it." Be sure to hear the word "UNPRECIDENTED OBSTRUCTION" a lot.

The filibuster is likely to end in a fizzle before that happens.   

3) Public got a good idea somethign shady was going on..let they dont give a shit. They SHOULD give a shit...shock that they don't. But there you have it. So not much political pressure. So it a good chance the filibuster may come off as silly.

Americans are always ignorant of what's going on.  What's new there?

So dont see this getting anywhere

Me either. 

Also how much does the guy there filibustering have to do with the drones.

I don't understand the question.  How much does Rand Paul have to do with the drones?  Or how much does is the filibuster focused on the drones? 

[IamtheRock3]

How much did the guy being nominated have to do with the drones

[IamtheRock3]

also didnt he reveal the memos to some members of congress

Actully think they have a better shot, if they didnt filibuster Hagel first

[Propeus The Fallen]

And the Sequester. Don't forget that.

...

So is Rand worried that Obama is going to snap one day and decide to mass murder several americans...?

[IamtheRock3]

And the Sequester. Don't forget that.

...

So is Rand worried that Obama is going to snap one day and decide to mass murder several americans...?

Think it more of the prescident it might Set


The Question to me about the drones, is if a private citezen joins Al Queda...and a terrorrist, when is it ok to kill those guys

Think you should try due process

But think that for NON American citezens.

[IamtheRock3]

wow he gave up a min ago

[issue9mm]

And it's over.  Rand had to pee, after about 13 hours.  

[issue9mm]

wow he gave up a min ago

He went 13 hours without peeing.  The longest filibuster before this that I can remember was like 8 and a half hours.  This was impressive.

[IamtheRock3]

And it's over.  Rand had to pee, after about 13 hours.  

Now if they FILIBUSTER again...at 10 am...I am going to call bullshit

[Ramz]

They've been talking for like, 12 hours straight now, basically.  Some of the other Senators in agreement with the cause have been 'tagging in' and killing time for Rand to rest.  Mostly it's been Ted Cruz, but Marco Rubio and a bunch of others have started chipping in. 

The trick is that Paul must acknowledge their interjections without ceding the floor.  If he were to accidentally cede the floor, his filibuster could get a filibuster. 

Effectively, at this point, they're just drilling in the message over and over while making life very inconvenient for the other attendees that aren't on board, or are in objection (like Harry Reid), in the hopes of wearing them down until they either come up with some kind of legislation requiring the president to clarify, or until (more likely) other democratic leaders wear down and join in with the cause to pressure Obama to provide an answer. 

Filibusters are generally the most fun things to watch, cause they're just obviously bullshitting.  Marco Rubio quoted Wiz Khalifa earlier, and quoted *numerous* passages from the Godfather, at one point even acknowledging that he had no idea how his quote related to the issue at hand. 

hahahaha, this sounds amazing. I'm not at all familiar with "filibusters" but I need to witness some of this madness first hand.

[IamtheRock3]

note that an OLD SCHOOL filisbuster

havent seen one of those for a bit

these new fangled filibuster dont have as much spark

but the Paul's are old G's like that

[NeoGreenLantern]

He went 13 hours without peeing.  The longest filibuster before this that I can remember was like 8 and a half hours.  This was impressive.

Strom Thurman has the record at a little over 24 hours. There are a few that stretched into to 20+ hour mark.

How much did the guy being nominated have to do with the drones

Not much. He's stated the CIA has no authority to make such attacks on US soil. He's also stated that it wouldn't be necessary for a strike like that because capture in the US is a much easier process than trying to capture someone in a foreign country. He's made a decent amount of statements saying he wouldn't be involved nor does he think it would ever be necessary for a lethal drone strike to go down in the US.

[issue9mm]

Yeah -- it was really just a way for Rand Paul to say "Up your Obama -- you want something, so give us answers." 

[Gaara of the Sand]

Paul is shaping up to be quite a hero for libertarian leaning people, and I couldn't be happier.  I hope he has a long, prosperous political future.

[issue9mm]

He's clearly planning to use the next few years to get a running start on his 2016 run for presidency.  I think he has more political game than Ron Paul, and if he can keep up momentum and stay in the mind's eye for the entire time, he should at least be a prime candidate for the Republican nomination.

[superlurker]

I think the very concept of a filibuster is actually dangerous and will continue to contribute to making U.S. law-making increasingly dysfunctional. There are plenty of other minority protections baked into the U.S. system.

Yet neither side will end the existence of it, as it is in their interest to keep it around when they are in the minority.

[Propeus The Fallen]

Just a question. Couldn't one of the senators just play a game on his ipad or something while Rand was talking?

[Bender]

I'll be damned because I feel somewhat uncomfortable about saying anything nice about the pauls (I think the only reason Ron Paul is not a dangerous Demagogue is because he never got much power)

But I respect the hell out of what Rand did here, and I agree with him, and it's funny to see the support he drew from both parties.

[issue9mm]

I think that's exactly the point Bender.  I mean, it was an important issue, for sure, but if we can ignore all that and just look at the political impact, I think he made pretty big inroads in endearing himself with anti-war lefties. 

Making a stand on the fifth amendment, knowing how sacred it is to Americans, and also knowing that he almost certainly wasn't going to get a response just makes him look good and the executive branch look bad; and specifically, to an audience that doesn't necessarily feel that way.

[MTL76]

Mr. Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question.

“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Mr. Graham said.

[IamtheRock3]

He's clearly planning to use the next few years to get a running start on his 2016 run for presidency.  I think he has more political game than Ron Paul, and if he can keep up momentum and stay in the mind's eye for the entire time, he should at least be a prime candidate for the Republican nomination.

he would never get past the general. never

[issue9mm]

I think so long as Graham, McCain, etc., look down on Rand Paul for this action, the better he looks.

[Bender]

Yeah, I wonder if he's shining his apple, but I also don't want to start ascribing motives even if they're negative here because it's more important that someone in the Senate is actually standing up and demanding answers about this.

Even supporting the use of drones to Kill Citizens who are clearly enemy combatants overseas, I am not comfortable with this being an option for people within the US that we should really just arrest.

[issue9mm]

Completely agreed.  I'm not suggesting that he's just posturing -- just saying that if he is, he picked a *really good* issue to posture on, and a pretty decent way in which to do so. 

Especially knowing that, almost for certain, Paul will vote to approve the nominee, and that his filibuster was obviously just an opportunity to try to sway the executive branch into coming up with an answer, and that knowing he probably wouldn't get it.  It all works in his favor.

[IamtheRock3]

also why left may like paul on the wars, and peace

He going to lose them on domestic spending issues, like medicare,social security, education, health care, wellfair

Also might lose republicans. Cause a lot of older republicans dont want you fucking with their medicare and social secuirty. People are for cuts. But then if you ask them what they would cut..damm near impossible to get them to agree

I think so long as Graham, McCain, etc., look down on Rand Paul for this action, the better he looks.

Your thinking the preisdent election
Election where he running against republicans..that may be bad

I mean I can see why they may be against him. Basicly holding up senate..for a 13 hour up yours that doesnt really amount to much. On a Nomination that had little to do with what he wanted to get answer

Also the promblem is some of the republicans LIKE the drone thing

That Said

I Do give him huge credit for actully TALKING during it. He talked, he took questions from democrats. He DEBATED the issue. He acknowledge when the dems made good points..like the the fact Bin Laden may of not appose Immediate threat at the time they didnt

And one republican admiting..."You know if Bin Laden was in American..I WOULDNT kill him". Taking a risk answering a direct question like that directly. And an Answer they may not be the politically smart answer. I say in extreme circumstance you make acceptions...but respect his answer


Promblem..is how many people stayed up that long to listen to all that

[issue9mm]

Doesn't matter who stayed up to hear it all (I did) -- just matters that the news is saying how he stood up and talked for 13 hours trying to get an answer.  That there are republicans who are nervous about him shining a light on American assassination is a good thing in the eye of the people. 

He'll have time to fix himself with other Republicans (if he chooses to), and there's plenty of tit for tat politics that he can take a stand on and make more political maneuvers. 

[IamtheRock3]

Doesn't matter who stayed up to hear it all (I did) -- just matters that the news is saying how he stood up and talked for 13 hours trying to get an answer.  That there are republicans who are nervous about him shining a light on American assassination is a good thing in the eye of the people. 

He'll have time to fix himself with other Republicans (if he chooses to), and there's plenty of tit for tat politics that he can take a stand on and make more political maneuvers. 

I dont know how close is he to his dad in politicis. Remember that guy getting booed a lot during the republican debates

[IamtheRock3]

Obama sent him a letter. Saying he doenst think he has a right to attack American citezens on American Soil. OFF american soil..that a whole another thing

but they claim to had no plans to use the drones on American soil.

now is that a switch

did they ever say they were going to launch drones on American soil

[issue9mm]

They never said that they wouldn't.  The answer was something like, "Well, we haven't ever killed Americans on American soil with drones, and *we don't have any intention to*.  Not having any intention to doesn't say that he doesn't feel entitled, or that he can't, and that's why people were freaking out. 

I haven't seen the text of it now, but if Obama's message just says "I don't think I can kill Americans on American soil", then that's still not exactly a specific answer, and isn't saying that he can or can't. 

[IamtheRock3]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/eric-holder-sent-letter-to-rand-paul-on-obamas-authority-to-target-u-s-citizens-with-drones-the-answer-is-no/


Reading directly from Holder’s letter to Paul, Carney said, “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no.”