Rand Paul’s filibuster.

[Supposn]

Rand Paul’s filibuster.
I describe myself as a populist and others describe me as a liberal. I more often than not am opposed to Rand Paul’s political positions. In this case I find his questions on the Senate floor completely pertinent to our less than transparent national policy with respect to drones used as a weapon over nations that we are not at war with.

I’m not opposed to spying and accepting the risk and consequences of being exposed, I’m not in principle opposed to any “black ops’”, (even assassinations that the commander-in-chief has deemed to be worthy of the national risk.

I’m less than certain that our nation should presume because we have the capability to enact assassinations within other sovereign nations we should publicly disrespect a sovereign nation and be unconcerned for death or injury to bystanders. we're demonstrate indifference for the opinions of our globes’ other nations.
Our declaration of independence employed the terms "When in the Course of human events, …
… a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”.
We are now contradicting that last term that refers to “… a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them … “.

I happen to appreciate the reason for Rand Paul’s filibuster but I particularly approve of the method he chose to implement his filibuster. The correctness of his method contrasts to the despicable hand shake agreement between senators Reid and McConnell.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - ol' Rand standin' up fer lil' kids right not to get shot...

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz threaten filibuster on guns
3/25/13 - Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are threatening to filibuster gun-control legislation, according to a letter they plan to hand-deliver to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office on Tuesday.

“We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions,” the three conservatives wrote in a copy of the signed letter obtained by POLITICO. Reid plans to bring up a gun-control measure that focuses on broadening background checks and cracking down on interstate gun-trafficking after the current Senate recess. Conservatives are concerned that once that bill reaches the floor, amendments could stiffen restrictions on gun control.

Paul's filibuster on drones earlier this month lasted nearly 13 hours.

Moreover, they understand that Reid intends to allow liberal amendments that would limit clip capacity and ban certain assault weapons to be offered — even though they would be defeated — to give Democrats a chance to vote on them. For moderate Democrats in competitive states, that amounts to an opportunity to vote no and show allegiance to gun rights. Though they don’t use the word “filibuster” in the letter, the conservatives are leaving no doubt that they would filibuster on an initial procedural question — the motion to proceed.

Lee staged a test vote on the issue during consideration of the Senate budget last week. He tried to amend a point of order against gun control legislation to the budget but fell short. It needed a three-fifths supermajority and failed 50-49, needing 60 votes to pass. But the final tally emboldened Lee, Paul and Cruz because they were so close to a majority and a filibuster takes just 41 votes to sustain.

Read more: Rand Paul and Ted Cruz threaten filibuster on guns - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

 

[Supposn]

... Moreover, they understand that Reid intends to allow liberal amendments that would limit clip capacity and ban certain assault weapons to be offered — even though they would be defeated — to give Democrats a chance to vote on them. For moderate Democrats in competitive states, that amounts to an opportunity to vote no and show allegiance to gun rights. Though they don’t use the word “filibuster” in the letter, the conservatives are leaving no doubt that they would filibuster on an initial procedural question — the motion to proceed. ...

Walt Ky, a vote on the senate floor would force opponents to limiting clip capacity and restricting sales of what’s would legally be described as assault weapons to openly vote their opinions and be held accountable for them.
All members of congress should be forced to acknowledge their positions in the most meaningful manner, with publically recorded votes in committees and the floors of their respective chambers. They may vote aye, nay or refrain from voting but they would be unable to evade their accountability.

If Harry Reid has the power to set the senate’s agenda, he should manipulate the existing rules to halt all or almost all meaningful activity from being conducted on the senate floor until this issue is voted on.

Prior to the 2010 elections, the Democrats didn’t debate or try to vote on taxes or anything meaningful with regard to the federal budget. They deserved the severe punishment inflicted upon them in that election.
I was a registered Democrat that voted in every general election and missed few primary elections since for over a half century. I remain a populist not opposed to the Green Party’s platform but do not share their priorities. Prior to the 2010 elections, as the only means voting protest, I changed my party registration from Democrat to Green Party.

I voted for Green Party U.S. House candidate in 20210 and their Electoral College candidate in the 2012. There were no Green candidates in the 2011 elections so I refrained from voting.

I have not forgiven Harry Reid for accepting Mitch McConnell’s hand shake deal of no excessive filibusters. I have not forgiven the president who’s the titular head of the Democratic Party, for not publically asking Senator Reid to attempt returning to the historic Senate rules. (This particular case is meaningful and not excessive).

I have not left the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party has left me.

Respectfully, Supposn