NSA reform bill goes down in flames

[Beet]

I would have gladly traded Keystone for this one...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-nsa-bill-112984.html?hp=c1_3

[Deus Naturae]

The bill would've postponed the Patriot Act's sunset date by two years, so it's probably a good thing it was defeated (though many opponents obviously had different motivations).

[Beet]

The bill would've postponed the Patriot Act's sunset date by two years, so it's probably a good thing it was defeated (though many opponents obviously had different motivations).

The problem is now the next Senate is going to deal with it and they're going to be even more pro-NSA/Patriot Act.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, once the Republicans take the Senate, 58 votes will probably be enough for bills to pass.

[Mehmentum]

Well, once the Republicans take the Senate, 58 votes will probably be enough for bills to pass.

You think the Republicans are going to get rid of the filibuster?  It doesn't make sense for them to do that, since they still couldn't get past Obama's veto and could theoretically could lose the Senate and House in two years.

A smarter option would be to wait until they have the trifecta to abolish the filibuster, doing so beforehand would be pointless.

[Free Bird]

Not really. Just subject to more amendment which is a good thing

[Simfan34]

I'm not a terrorist, so excellent news!

[Lief 🗽]

Reminder that there's absolutely no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and they vote identically on issues like these.

(Also it's ridiculous that "moderate" Republicans like Kirk vote lockstep with Mitch McConnell on literally everything (with the exception of gun control, I think) and get away with it. Heller is an example of an actual moderate Republican, and unfortunately I think it'll be very hard to beat him because of it.)

[Simfan34]

Lief, I thought you supported this sort of thing. Also why did Rand Paul vote no- what exactly was this supposed to do?

[Lief 🗽]

This isn't an issue that's really that important to me. I'm mostly just opposed to the histrionics of the people that think this is some grave Orwellian nightmare and that Snowden was a hero saving us from tyranny. From reading the NYT article about the bill, the reforms seem reasonable.

Paul voted no because it didn't go far enough, supposedly. I think the reality is that he's just a coward and is beginning his shift into the Republican mainstream as he prepares his presidential candidacy.

[Deus Naturae]

Lief, I thought you supported this sort of thing. Also why did Rand Paul vote no- what exactly was this supposed to do?

The bill would've hired a bunch of "privacy advocates" to work in the FISA courts while extending the Patriot Act's expiration date. The fact that people like Dianne Feinstein voted for it should be enough to make clear that it was a meaningless bill designed to make it look like Obama was responding to the NSA issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lief, I thought you supported this sort of thing. Also why did Rand Paul vote no- what exactly was this supposed to do?

The bill would've hired a bunch of "privacy advocates" to work in the FISA courts while extending the Patriot Act's expiration date. The fact that people like Dianne Feinstein voted for it should be enough to make clear that it was a meaningless bill designed to make it look like Obama was responding to the NSA issue.

If it was meaningless, you would have seen some Democratic no votes from the left, like Harkin, Leahy, or Sanders. The only Democratic to vote no was Bill Nelson, and he's pretty useless, so I'm sure he voted no for the wrong reasons.

[IceSpear]

This isn't an issue that's really that important to me. I'm mostly just opposed to the histrionics of the people that think this is some grave Orwellian nightmare and that Snowden was a hero saving us from tyranny. From reading the NYT article about the bill, the reforms seem reasonable.

Paul voted no because it didn't go far enough, supposedly. I think the reality is that he's just a coward and is beginning his shift into the Republican mainstream as he prepares his presidential candidacy.

But...but...Rand's principle! #Democrats4Rand

[Deus Naturae]

I highly doubt Rand voted against this because of cowardice. Ted Cruz voted in favor so it's not like he would be attacked for it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I highly doubt Rand voted against this because of cowardice. Ted Cruz voted in favor so it's not like he would be attacked for it.

Rand voted against it supposedly because it didn't go far enough.
Which is of course a load of bull. He did that because he doesn't want to get attacked in the Republican primary as being "soft on terrorism".

[Deus Naturae]

I highly doubt Rand voted against this because of cowardice. Ted Cruz voted in favor so it's not like he would be attacked for it.

Rand voted against it supposedly because it didn't go far enough.
Which is of course a load of bull. He did that because he doesn't want to get attacked in the Republican primary as being "soft on terrorism".

Except that, a) Ted Cruz voted in favor of the bill (did you even read my post?), and b) as I've already pointed out, this bill would extend the Patriot Act's expiration date by several years but would supposedly protect civil liberties by "hiring privacy advocates." That clearly isn't a worthwhile trade-off to anyone who cares more about civil liberties than making it seem like Democrats actually give a sh**t about the government spying on people.

Also, this disingenuous bill was opposed in the House by Justin Amash, so unless you think him and Rand Paul are part of a libertarian conspiracy to support government surveillance, there are clearly principled anti-surveillance reasons for opposing this.

[SPC]

I highly doubt Rand voted against this because of cowardice. Ted Cruz voted in favor so it's not like he would be attacked for it.

Rand voted against it supposedly because it didn't go far enough.
Which is of course a load of bull. He did that because he doesn't want to get attacked in the Republican primary as being "soft on terrorism".

Except that, a) Ted Cruz voted in favor the bill (did you even read my post?), and b) as I've already pointed out, this bill would extend the Patriot Act's expiration date by several years but would supposedly protect civil liberties by "hiring privacy advocates." That clearly isn't a worthwhile trade-off to anyone who cares more about civil liberties than making it seem like Democrats actually give a sh**t about the government spying on people.

Also, this disingenuous bill was opposed in the House by Justin Amash, so unless you think him and Rand Paul are part of a libertarian conspiracy to support government surveillance, there are clearly principled anti-surveillance reasons for opposing this.

Now why did so many pro-surveillance Republicans vote for the bill in the House? Was it because Senate control was still ambiguous at that point?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Good.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I highly doubt Rand voted against this because of cowardice. Ted Cruz voted in favor so it's not like he would be attacked for it.

Rand voted against it supposedly because it didn't go far enough.
Which is of course a load of bull. He did that because he doesn't want to get attacked in the Republican primary as being "soft on terrorism".

Except that, a) Ted Cruz voted in favor of the bill (did you even read my post?), and b) as I've already pointed out, this bill would extend the Patriot Act's expiration date by several years but would supposedly protect civil liberties by "hiring privacy advocates." That clearly isn't a worthwhile trade-off to anyone who cares more about civil liberties than making it seem like Democrats actually give a sh**t about the government spying on people.

Also, this disingenuous bill was opposed in the House by Justin Amash, so unless you think him and Rand Paul are part of a libertarian conspiracy to support government surveillance, there are clearly principled anti-surveillance reasons for opposing this.

I believe the bill was actually put forward by Amash to begin with, before it got amended to death and he turned against it.

[Beet]

I highly doubt Rand voted against this because of cowardice. Ted Cruz voted in favor so it's not like he would be attacked for it.

Rand voted against it supposedly because it didn't go far enough.
Which is of course a load of bull. He did that because he doesn't want to get attacked in the Republican primary as being "soft on terrorism".

Except that, a) Ted Cruz voted in favor of the bill (did you even read my post?), and b) as I've already pointed out, this bill would extend the Patriot Act's expiration date by several years but would supposedly protect civil liberties by "hiring privacy advocates." That clearly isn't a worthwhile trade-off to anyone who cares more about civil liberties than making it seem like Democrats actually give a sh**t about the government spying on people.

Also, this disingenuous bill was opposed in the House by Justin Amash, so unless you think him and Rand Paul are part of a libertarian conspiracy to support government surveillance, there are clearly principled anti-surveillance reasons for opposing this.

a) EFF supported the bill. I suppose they're disingenuous about privacy and only care about marketing? b) If the Patriot Act isn't extended anyway feel free to pip me on this a year from now

[Beet]

Also, even if the Patriot Act does expire, the NSA still can use its authority indefinitely under "existing investigations", some of which are general in nature.

[BaconBacon96]

Bill Nelson didn't vote with his party and Rand Paul was a coward. These are the reasons this bill failed today.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Bill Nelson didn't vote with his party and Rand Paul was a coward. These are the reasons this bill failed today.

You could argue that he is a fool, making the perfect the enemy of the good, but there's nothing here to suggest he is being cowardly on this issue.  It's not only cynical to suggest Paul voted the way he did to sell out for his political future, it's also a misreading of the political landscape.  A more accurate cynicism is to note that Republicans generally had little problem with an intrusive security apparatus so long as there was a Republican president, but that with a Democrat in the WH a Republican seeking to get support from the base risks next to nothing opposing the NSA.

[Deus Naturae]

a) EFF supported the bill. I suppose they're disingenuous about privacy and only care about marketing? b) If the Patriot Act isn't extended anyway feel free to pip me on this a year from now

I'm not saying that anyone who supports this bill is disingenuous (just mistaken), I'm simply pointing out that not everyone who opposed it was a surveillance supporter or an unprincipled coward.