The Rand Paul sideshow

[Moliere]

he is a gay-hater and wants to undo a woman's right to make her own health decisions. Like his father, he also ascribes to nonsense like the "good old days"

You sound like the Catholic Church. Is it hating gays to say that States should determine same sex marriage instead of the federal government or that he is in favor of legal contracts between 2 adults?

Yes, to support anything other than nationwide, full marriage equality is unacceptable at this point. You either support equality, or you are a gay-hating bigot. There is no gray area. No room for debate. Religion did not create the concept of marriage, or coin the word marriage. Marriage is a state institution, and anyone who believes that my relationship is underserving of the *EXACT* same legal protections and institutions as a heterosexual relationship is beneath contempt.

Well, at least we can agree that the Catholic Church is beneath contempt. As for Rand, my linked article seems to be saying that he is in favor of the exact same legal protections as a heterosexual relationship. Everyone is caught up on the word "marriage" as if it holds sacred meaning. If two people want to be married, god help them, then let them enter into a contract enforced by the government. They can call it whatever they want: civil union, marriage, bonding, coupling, partnership, etc. Who cares what it's called as long as they are all treated the same?

[Rip]

he is a gay-hater and wants to undo a woman's right to make her own health decisions. Like his father, he also ascribes to nonsense like the "good old days"

You sound like the Catholic Church. Is it hating gays to say that States should determine same sex marriage instead of the federal government or that he is in favor of legal contracts between 2 adults?

Yes, to support anything other than nationwide, full marriage equality is unacceptable at this point. You either support equality, or you are a gay-hating bigot. There is no gray area. No room for debate. Religion did not create the concept of marriage, or coin the word marriage. Marriage is a state institution, and anyone who believes that my relationship is underserving of the *EXACT* same legal protections and institutions as a heterosexual relationship is beneath contempt.

Good luck winning elections with that moniker.

The lather that the mention of Rand gets Fireball into reaffirms my selection. The Democratic foot soldiers don't get worked up about someone who isn't a threat. They obviously know he is.

[Fireball]

As for Rand, my linked article seems to be saying that he is in favor of the exact same legal protections as a heterosexual relationship.

Without the word "marriage" then it's not the same. Separate is not equal. If my brother and his wife can be legally married, then I have the right to be legally married. Words mean things. They have value and importance beyond their definition. Kids don't grow up dreaming of someday getting civil unions. We dream of getting married. And I will not be denied the word and institution I deserve just as equally as any straight person just because gay-haters like Rand Paul get all twisted up about sharing the word.

There was a time when the gay community would have been happy to accept the second-class solution of civil unions. But when that became a possibility, the right-wing roared into action and made sure their anti-gay laws banned not only marriage but *also* civil unions. And now that the tide has turned, suddenly the right-wingers want us to give up our clear path to victory and settle for a second-class status. Too late for that. The right-wing could have had a negotiated peace with the gay rights movement on this issue in the early 2000s. Now, they have no future but total defeat.

[Fireball]

he is a gay-hater and wants to undo a woman's right to make her own health decisions. Like his father, he also ascribes to nonsense like the "good old days"

You sound like the Catholic Church. Is it hating gays to say that States should determine same sex marriage instead of the federal government or that he is in favor of legal contracts between 2 adults?

Yes, to support anything other than nationwide, full marriage equality is unacceptable at this point. You either support equality, or you are a gay-hating bigot. There is no gray area. No room for debate. Religion did not create the concept of marriage, or coin the word marriage. Marriage is a state institution, and anyone who believes that my relationship is underserving of the *EXACT* same legal protections and institutions as a heterosexual relationship is beneath contempt.

Good luck winning elections with that moniker.

The lather that the mention of Rand gets Fireball into reaffirms my selection. The Democratic foot soldiers don't get worked up about someone who isn't a threat. They obviously know he is.

Yeah, I was way off the mark with my comment there. People are never beneath contempt, but ideas (like marriage inequality) can be. I've corrected my brash overstatement, and apologize.

As for Rand? I don't fear him. He has no chance to win the GOP nomination. And his anti-gay politics, audit-the-Fed insanity, and wildly veering about foreign policy positions would doom him in the general if he did somehow squeak through to get the nod. The only Republicans I fear could win in 2016 are Jeb Bush and, to a far lesser degree, Scott Walker.

[Rip]

As for Rand, my linked article seems to be saying that he is in favor of the exact same legal protections as a heterosexual relationship.

Without the word "marriage" then it's not the same. Separate is not equal. If my brother and his wife can be legally married, then I have the right to be legally married. Words mean things. They have value and importance beyond their definition. Kids don't grow up dreaming of someday getting civil unions. We dream of getting married. And I will not be denied the word and institution I deserve just as equally as any straight person just because gay-haters like Rand Paul get all twisted up about sharing the word.

There was a time when the gay community would have been happy to accept the second-class solution of civil unions. But when that became a possibility, the right-wing roared into action and made sure their anti-gay laws banned not only marriage but *also* civil unions. And now that the tide has turned, suddenly the right-wingers want us to give up our clear path to victory and settle for a second-class status. Too late for that. The right-wing could have had a negotiated peace with the gay rights movement on this issue in the early 2000s. Now, they have no future but total defeat.

If a single Democratic candidate comes out and says that I will eat my hat.

[Enough]

he is a gay-hater and wants to undo a woman's right to make her own health decisions. Like his father, he also ascribes to nonsense like the "good old days"

You sound like the Catholic Church. Is it hating gays to say that States should determine same sex marriage instead of the federal government or that he is in favor of legal contracts between 2 adults?

Yes, to support anything other than nationwide, full marriage equality is unacceptable at this point. You either support equality, or you are a gay-hating bigot. There is no gray area. No room for debate. Religion did not create the concept of marriage, or coin the word marriage. Marriage is a state institution, and anyone who believes that my relationship is underserving of the *EXACT* same legal protections and institutions as a heterosexual relationship is beneath contempt.

Good luck winning elections with that moniker.

The lather that the mention of Rand gets Fireball into reaffirms my selection. The Democratic foot soldiers don't get worked up about someone who isn't a threat. They obviously know he is.

How do you know FB isn't manipulating your psychology to get you to support Rand Paul because he knows RP stands no chance? Seems like if all it takes is lathering up that it would be pretty easy thing to pull off.

[Fireball]

As for Rand, my linked article seems to be saying that he is in favor of the exact same legal protections as a heterosexual relationship.

Without the word "marriage" then it's not the same. Separate is not equal. If my brother and his wife can be legally married, then I have the right to be legally married. Words mean things. They have value and importance beyond their definition. Kids don't grow up dreaming of someday getting civil unions. We dream of getting married. And I will not be denied the word and institution I deserve just as equally as any straight person just because gay-haters like Rand Paul get all twisted up about sharing the word.

There was a time when the gay community would have been happy to accept the second-class solution of civil unions. But when that became a possibility, the right-wing roared into action and made sure their anti-gay laws banned not only marriage but *also* civil unions. And now that the tide has turned, suddenly the right-wingers want us to give up our clear path to victory and settle for a second-class status. Too late for that. The right-wing could have had a negotiated peace with the gay rights movement on this issue in the early 2000s. Now, they have no future but total defeat.

If a single Democratic candidate comes out and says that I will eat my hat.

Says what?

[Rip]

As for Rand, my linked article seems to be saying that he is in favor of the exact same legal protections as a heterosexual relationship.

Without the word "marriage" then it's not the same. Separate is not equal. If my brother and his wife can be legally married, then I have the right to be legally married. Words mean things. They have value and importance beyond their definition. Kids don't grow up dreaming of someday getting civil unions. We dream of getting married. And I will not be denied the word and institution I deserve just as equally as any straight person just because gay-haters like Rand Paul get all twisted up about sharing the word.

There was a time when the gay community would have been happy to accept the second-class solution of civil unions. But when that became a possibility, the right-wing roared into action and made sure their anti-gay laws banned not only marriage but *also* civil unions. And now that the tide has turned, suddenly the right-wingers want us to give up our clear path to victory and settle for a second-class status. Too late for that. The right-wing could have had a negotiated peace with the gay rights movement on this issue in the early 2000s. Now, they have no future but total defeat.

If a single Democratic candidate comes out and says that I will eat my hat.

Says what?

Without the word "marriage" then it's not the same. Separate is not equal. If my brother and his wife can be legally married, then I have the right to be legally married. Words mean things. They have value and importance beyond their definition.

There was a time when the gay community would have been happy to accept the second-class solution of civil unions. But when that became a possibility, the right-wing roared into action and made sure their anti-gay laws banned not only marriage but *also* civil unions. And now that the tide has turned, suddenly the right-wingers want us to give up our clear path to victory and settle for a second-class status. Too late for that.

[Fireball]

The position that the word "marriage" is in and of itself important is fundamental to the marriage equality movement. The movement didn't always uniformly agree with that, but it's where the issue is today and has been for the last several years. As for what the gay community would have accepted back in 2004, how is that something that would even come up in a campaign?

Not everything I say or do is about whatever election happens to be on the forefront of your thoughts at the moment, nor should my statements be considered a reflection of what any particular candidate for elected office thinks about anything. Hell, sometimes they don't even reflect what I think, which is why I have to calm down and edit my posts so often.

[Rip]

The position that the word "marriage" is in and of itself important is fundamental to the marriage equality movement. The movement didn't always uniformly agree with that, but it's where the issue is today and has been for the last several years. As for what the gay community would have accepted back in 2004, how is that something that would even come up in a campaign?

Not everything I say or do is about whatever election happens to be on the forefront of your thoughts at the moment, nor should my statements be considered a reflection of what any particular candidate for elected office thinks about anything. Hell, sometimes they don't even reflect what I think, which is why I have to calm down and edit my posts so often.

Yea, I get that and that is cool.

I'm just pointing out that although you think that and heck even some candidates might believe that. Not a single one would say that.

[Fireball]

Were I running for office, I would say that. It's the truth. There's no harm in telling the truth, particularly on an issue like gay rights where the facts are entirely one-sided.

[Moliere]

Now, they have no future but total defeat.

Yup. Worse case scenario is waiting for more old people to die off since they seem unable to change their views in the face of societal changes.

[Pyperkub]

What I really hope for out of a Rand candidacy is an open discussion of the surveillance state and drone strikes.

[Fireball]

Now, they have no future but total defeat.

Yup. Worse case scenario is waiting for more old people to die off since they seem unable to change their views in the face of societal changes.

No one needs to wait for people to die off. And even many seniors have come around to the enlightened perspective on marriage equality. The question is: when will the Republican Party as an entity stop trying to fight this battle — or, worse, try to take revenge for this loss by passing laws that explicitly condone discrimination against LGBT Americans?

[Combustible Lemur]

Now, they have no future but total defeat.

Yup. Worse case scenario is waiting for more old people to die off since they seem unable to change their views in the face of societal changes.

No one needs to wait for people to die off. And even many seniors have come around to the enlightened perspective on marriage equality. The question is: when will the Republican Party as an entity stop trying to fight this battle — or, worse, try to take revenge for this loss by passing laws that explicitly condone discrimination against LGBT Americans?

As soon as they start losing their frothing at the mouth demographic tat fears and hates the media for trying to take over America with their gay agenda. Just like you won't see too many dems bad mouth whatever their frothy mouthed assured voters want. Assured voting blocks need their reassurance.

[Enough]

Now, they have no future but total defeat.

Yup. Worse case scenario is waiting for more old people to die off since they seem unable to change their views in the face of societal changes.

Thomas Kuhn nods in agreement.

[Moliere]

Now, they have no future but total defeat.

Yup. Worse case scenario is waiting for more old people to die off since they seem unable to change their views in the face of societal changes.

No one needs to wait for people to die off. And even many seniors have come around to the enlightened perspective on marriage equality. The question is: when will the Republican Party as an entity stop trying to fight this battle — or, worse, try to take revenge for this loss by passing laws that explicitly condone discrimination against LGBT Americans?

I agree there is no reason to wait for the old to die off, but that's what it will take for total defeat. They will still lose in the next couple of years. There's too much momentum. Even Republicans and old people have shifted in the right direction. Skip to 3.43 and hear Penn sum up how the next couple of years will go. We're seeing the people clutch at their anachronism.

[Isgrimnur]

He's not rude to just female reporters, he's rude to all of them:

“I think I’ve been universally short tempered and testy with both male and female reporters, I’ll own up to that,” Paul said, noting that he gets particularly irritated when reporters frontload questions with lengthy—and sometimes accusatory—comments.

“I think I should have more patience but I think I’m pretty equal opportunity,” Paul said. “I was annoyed with a male reporter this morning. I will have to get better and holding my tongue and holding my temper but I think it's pretty equal opportunity, not directed toward one male or female.”

Paul’s defense drew support from an unlikely place: male reporters, who took to Twitter to share their own stories of battling with the candidate. “Rand patronizing women reporters is a catty, clever DNC line,” Jeremy Peters, a reporter for The New York Times tweeted, referencing the Democratic National Committee. “But it’s not accurate. I can attest.”

Other male reporters, including John Harwood, agreed. Harwood posted a link to a 2013 NPR interview he conducted with Paul, in which the senator firmly takes issue with Harwood’s questions about a former Paul staffer who was facing allegations of racism. Paul also tussled with the Associated Press’s Philip Elliot when Elliot asked Paul why he wouldn’t offer any specifics of his position on the issue of abortion.

[Chaz]

For someone who gets so annoyed at reporters for doing their jobs wrong, he's pretty cavalier about giving five minute answers that do absolutely nothing to answer the question that was asked. Hell, he did that even when the reporter asked the question that he just told the reporter to ask.

[Arcanis]

I'll put it like this. Paul is the only likely candidate that even pays lip service to being the kind of candidate I want. I don't see myself voting this presidential election due to being so turned away by both parties and all major candidates.

[Enough]

Well Rand is leading Hillary in Colorado in the most recent poll. Will Rand have a Dean scream moment that sends his numbers back down, or is he more formidable than many of us think?

[Alefroth]

I imagine they'll go down even without a Dean moment.

[Pyperkub]

I'll put it like this. Paul is the only likely candidate that even pays lip service to being the kind of candidate I want. I don't see myself voting this presidential election due to being so turned away by both parties and all major candidates.

Chafee might be interesting.

[Rip]

I'll put it like this. Paul is the only likely candidate that even pays lip service to being the kind of candidate I want. I don't see myself voting this presidential election due to being so turned away by both parties and all major candidates.

Chafee might be interesting.

Not really.

[Enough]

Rand loves him some Koch.

What is underappreciated is their passion for freedom and their commitment to ideas. Unlike many crony capitalists who troll the halls of Congress looking for favors, the Kochs have consistently lobbied against special-interest politics.

[Pyperkub]

There should be an interesting peek at what he and Cruz (and the other candidates) believe when section 215 of the Patriot Act comes up again this June:

Section 215 of the Patriot Act Expires in June. Is Congress Ready?

You may have heard that the Patriot Act is set to expire soon. That’s not quite the case. The Patriot Act was a large bill, as were the reauthorizations that followed in 2005 and 2006. Not all of it sunsets. But three provisions do expire on June 1st: Section 215, the "Lone Wolf provision," and the "roving wiretap" provision.

All of these sections are concerning, but Section 215 takes the cake. It’s the authority that the NSA, with the FBI’s help, has interpreted to allow the U.S. government to vacuum up the call records of millions of innocent people. It’s also been the focus of most of the NSA reform efforts in Congress over the last year and a half. But if there were ever a time to reform the NSA, it’s now

[Moliere]

Something important is happening in Nevada. And it’s bad for Rand Paul.

Let the GOP conspiracy theories begin.

[Jeff V]

If Nevada was his "ace in the hole", he's pretty much doomed anyway. Wake me up when he gets a Texas or New York.

[Moliere]

Rand Paul starts his Patriot Act renewal filibuster

[Pyperkub]

Rand Paul starts his Patriot Act renewal filibuster

Or is it just a sideshow?

Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to launch a “filibuster” of a bill to reauthorize a major government surveillance program. One problem: It’s not actually a filibuster...

...The Senate is currently working through the 30 hours of debate on a trade bill and is scheduled to vote one hour after the chamber convenes on Thursday — meaning Paul’s time to speak runs out at about midnight tonight. That gives the Kentucky Senator hours to lash out against the National Security Agency, without actually gumming up the legislative works.

“If Sen. Paul delays the vote scheduled for one hour after we convene tomorrow, it’s a filibuster. If not, it’s not,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson tweeted...

...Rather, Paul’s speech amounts to a de facto campaign speech and in which he lamented the threat to citizens posed by Big Government.

So... we shall see whether he is grandstanding or actually filibustering the renewal... if the latter, I'd hope some others such as Sen Wyden help him. If not...

Edit - what it sounds like he's doing is actually preventing any debate on the TPP. Or having the reverse effect of what he thinks he's doing.

[Jaymann]

How does a filibuster actually work? Do they get to go home at night, or do they have to keep going 24/7?

[Pyperkub]

Ron Wyden has apparently joined him. I would love it if they actually did it, but I am extremely cynical about whether they will stick it through to the end.

[Kraken]

How does a filibuster actually work? Do they get to go home at night, or do they have to keep going 24/7?

A senator says "I call filibuster!" If he has more than 40 colleagues on his side then the legislation is dead unless proponents can override it with 60 votes. Actually getting up and talking is just showboating.

[Pyperkub]

The WaPo argues that the not-a-filibuster is a filibuster:

Some Senate watchers have sniffed that Paul’s speech is not in fact a filibuster. That’s because the Senate is not actually amid debate on extending the surveillance authority, it’s debating trade legislation, and a petition to limit that debate is pending. That means, regardless of how long Paul speaks, he will have to yield the floor no later than 1 p.m. Thursday, when a vote on the “cloture” petition must take place under Senate rules.

But Paul himself is calling his speech a filibuster, and with good reason: If he keeps talking long enough, he can upend Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s carefully laid plans for the week, prevent amendments to the trade bill, delay consideration of the surveillance legislation, and otherwise prevent his Senate colleagues from enjoying their holiday weekends.

I'll believe it when June 2nd comes along. Until then, it's grandstanding, IMHO, though if it prevents TPP fast-track authority, I'm currently for it, as I expect that many SOPA and PIPA provisions which couldn't pass Congress because of uproar once they were discovered are being thrust into the Trade agreement as a backdoor way around that dissent.

[Pyperkub]

And he's done.

[hepcat]

Any chance there was that I would give him even the slightest consideration is now slim to nil. He's a bit dumber than I like.

[Pyperkub]

Did you see what he did there?

He starts off with the right to health care, and then he turns it into free health care.

[hepcat]

The expression on the face of the woman seated behind him sums it all up nicely.

"Wait...what?"

[Moliere]

Any chance there was that I would give him even the slightest consideration is now slim to nil. He's a bit dumber than I like.

He's making the point between claim rights and liberty rights. If you have a right to food then someone has to provide it. What if they don't want to provide it? Are they to be arrested? What if they resist arrest? Now you have the hypothetical situation of someone getting shot because they didn't want to provide you food. He's a Doctor. Is he obligated to provide you healthcare?

[hepcat]

That distinction should have been more clear, and not used in an argument that meandered off course into a diatribe that likens firefighters and policeman to slaves.

He's creating a strawman argument, then putting a boogeyman outfit on it.