Senator Rand Paul suing Obama Administration regarding NSA

[ArcadiaGP]

Rand Paul, Ken Cuccinelli sue Obama on behalf of every phone user | The Daily Caller
Rand Paul Sues the NSA and Obama Administration - Video

So, Rand is suing the President's administration and NSA on our behalf in regards to an overreach in surveillance on American citizens, and violating the Constitution.

How do you see this playing out?

 

[ViperJock]

Rand Paul is in a car accident strangely using iv drugs for the first time in his life.

 

[Bennettjh]

He will have no phone untouched.

 

[Tnichols00]

Why do we have so few Rand Pauls in politics?

 

[Doug]

I see the Justice department taking up the defense of the Administration. They will stonewall, withhold evidence, and demand continuances to delay any trials until after 2016.
It is an appropriate gesture, but it will accomplish nothing.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

It's a grandiose gesture intended to improve his name recognition and standing in the polls, particularly with the younger 18-29 crowd. This will accomplish nothing, as suing the government tends to accomplish. By the time this gets resolved, he will either be in office and will have unilaterally changed the behavior of the NSA via "executive action" or he will remain Senator and continue to rail against it while Kildog Clinton assumes office and has him summarily executed a la Vince Foster, or he will suddenly have a "heart attack" like Andrew Breitbart, despite being in pretty excellent physical shape. I admire the principle, but I see this very clearly for what it is: a clever political ploy to boost his approval and name recognition.

 

[rambone]

Positives

• keeps national discussion on relevant matters
• puts political pressure on offending parties
• causes realization that people's rights ARE being violated
• stirs libertarian discussion
• demonstrates popularity of a freedom based agenda
• builds name recognition and leadership image
• builds support base

Negatives

• People complain that this move might help him run for president

 

[IndyDave1776]

Positives

• keeps national discussion on relevant matters
• puts political pressure on offending parties
• causes realization that people's rights ARE being violated
• stirs libertarian discussion
• demonstrates popularity of a freedom based agenda
• builds name recognition and leadership image
• builds support base

Negatives

• People complain that this move might help him run for president

Exactly! Straight out of Atlas Shrugged--the twin protests that anything a person gains from doing is inherently evil regardless of how many people are better off because of it, and anything done without (visible) personal gain is inherently good no matter how many people are harmed, because, damnit, it wasn't done for 'selfish' reasons.

 

[Captain Bligh]

Political dramatic grandstanding. It's cheaper self-promotion to sue POTUS than to pay for campaign advertising.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Political dramatic grandstanding. It's cheaper self-promotion to sue POTUS than to pay for campaign advertising.

You are, however, overlooking the fact that he is objectively right.

 

[jperry]

I don't care if it is grandstanding to keep his name out there. I support almost everything he has said since I started paying attention to rand. Out of all of the other republican he is the only one so far I like besides Ted Cruz.

 

[jperry]

But in the end they are all out for number one so like forest's moms box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get till they are in. I hope rand is what he says he is and not another sell out, because the status quo on either side is getthing the job done.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But in the end they are all out for number one so like forest's moms box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get till they are in. I hope rand is what he says he is and not another sell out, because the status quo on either side is getthing the job done.

If he were a sellout, I don't think he would have done nearly so much pissing in the establishment water dish. If they know anything, it is how to knife what they consider traitors (to the party) which we consider patriots.

 

[bingley]

I don't care if it is grandstanding to keep his name out there.

If he is not grandstanding, then he should have a sense of the viability of the case. He should have tactics for removing the obstacles. In other words, he has a convincing game plan for winning the suit. He should have a strong case and know how to make his argument felt in the court. He should come close to pulling it off, if not pulling it off. He will have done something good.

If not, if the case evaporates and he just fumes in front of cameras, then it's grandstanding. In that case, ask yourself: do you want another ineffective politician who plays the game to get elected, but doesn't actually do what's right and what's good for the people?

So, there is no need to judge him now. Let his actions speak.

 

[bwframe]

So, there is no need to judge him now. Let his actions speak.

Back him!
It's a good message, he's a good man.
On top of the fact, he's the first political contender to call Bill Clinton what he really is.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If he is not grandstanding, then he should have a sense of the viability of the case. He should have tactics for removing the obstacles. In other words, he has a convincing game plan for winning the suit. He should have a strong case and know how to make his argument felt in the court. He should come close to pulling it off, if not pulling it off. He will have done something good.

If not, if the case evaporates and he just fumes in front of cameras, then it's grandstanding. In that case, ask yourself: do you want another ineffective politician who plays the game to get elected, but doesn't actually do what's right and what's good for the people?

So, there is no need to judge him now. Let his actions speak.

If he can keep people's minds on real threats to their freedom rather than the latest installment of ['reality' program of your choice] he has won a significant victory without gaining any headway whatsoever. If that carries over into the next election cycle, so much the better. If he wins in court, I will really be ready to celebrate. In an honest court, the viable plan to win clearly exists in that a real violation exists so clearly that Ray Charles could see it. In a dishonest court, no matter of fact or reason will make a difference. Rand Paul is not responsible for that, nor is he obligated to stand down on account of the possibility (likelihood) that the court is less than honest.

 

[jamil]

If he is not grandstanding, then he should have a sense of the viability of the case. He should have tactics for removing the obstacles. In other words, he has a convincing game plan for winning the suit. He should have a strong case and know how to make his argument felt in the court. He should come close to pulling it off, if not pulling it off. He will have done something good.

If not, if the case evaporates and he just fumes in front of cameras, then it's grandstanding. In that case, ask yourself: do you want another ineffective politician who plays the game to get elected, but doesn't actually do what's right and what's good for the people?

So, there is no need to judge him now. Let his actions speak.

It doesn't matter what you say, and it only matters what you do when it results in achieving a useful goal. Just fighting the fight isn't a goal.

All politicians are self serving. But the question is, do they accomplish something worthwhile for their constituents while serving themselves or do they only accomplish serving themselves?

I remember back when Cruz pulled his little shutdown stunt. I can call it a stunt now because it's pretty obvious after the fact that's all it was. I supported him during. I gave him the benefit of the doubt even though I couldn't see it ending any other way than it did. I reasoned that maybe he knows something the public isn't privy to. Maybe he has a plan to make this work. He didn't. In the end his only plan seemed to be to appear to his constituents and supporters that he stood up to Obama. It was 100% self serving.

Cruz hurt his constituents and colleagues more than he helped. The only gain was personal. The only useful thing he accomplished was by serendipity. His stunt managed to take momentum away from amnesty. I doubt that was his goal all along, but saying so was a convenient cover for his conspicuously missing strategy. If delaying amnesty was his goal all along, he lost a war to win a [STRIKE]battle[/STRIKE] skirmish.

If Rand's goal is to win this lawsuit, he doesn't get points for trying because he knows the score. The stakes are too high for the courts to be honest. If he's fighting a battle he knows he can't win, he better have a plan to come away with more than just pats on the back for his efforts. I am a Rand supporter. But, like Cruz, if all Rand ends up with is accolades from his admirers just for trying, I will probably lose respect for him like I did for Cruz.

If he can keep people's minds on real threats to their freedom rather than the latest installment of ['reality' program of your choice] he has won a significant victory without gaining any headway whatsoever. If that carries over into the next election cycle, so much the better. If he wins in court, I will really be ready to celebrate. In an honest court, the viable plan to win clearly exists in that a real violation exists so clearly that Ray Charles could see it. In a dishonest court, no matter of fact or reason will make a difference. Rand Paul is not responsible for that, nor is he obligated to stand down on account of the possibility (likelihood) that the court is less than honest.

Practically speaking, I think this may be the best goal he can achieve. So, I will wait and see what is his end game and judge him by what he actually accomplishes.

In the end I may end up supporting him anyway, but only because he is the lesser evil.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I wouldn't say it's grandstanding. I'd say it's a senator finally standing up to protect the constitution before it erodes away completely.

It's also a subject that many left-leaners can and do get behind (if you're into Reddit at all... this stuff that Rand does spreads pretty well across both sides).

Will he win? Not likely... but ideally, more attention will be called as a result of it. Like or hate Rand Paul's politics or his crazy dad... he does bring both sides together very well in regards to privacy, drone strikes, etc.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It doesn't matter what you say, and it only matters what you do when it results in achieving a useful goal. Just fighting the fight isn't a goal.

All politicians are self serving. But the question is, do they accomplish something worthwhile for their constituents while serving themselves or do they only accomplish serving themselves?

I remember back when Cruz pulled his little shutdown stunt. I can call it a stunt now because it's pretty obvious after the fact that's all it was. I supported him during. I gave him the benefit of the doubt even though I couldn't see it ending any other way than it did. I reasoned that maybe he knows something the public isn't privy to. Maybe he has a plan to make this work. He didn't. In the end his only plan seemed to be to appear to his constituents and supporters that he stood up to Obama. It was 100% self serving.

Cruz hurt his constituents and colleagues more than he helped. The only gain was personal. The only useful thing he accomplished was by serendipity. His stunt managed to take momentum away from amnesty. I doubt that was his goal all along, but saying so was a convenient cover for his conspicuously missing strategy. If delaying amnesty was his goal all along, he lost a war to win a [STRIKE]battle[/STRIKE] skirmish.

If Rand's goal is to win this lawsuit, he doesn't get points for trying because he knows the score. The stakes are too high for the courts to be honest. If he's fighting a battle he knows he can't win, he better have a plan to come away with more than just pats on the back for his efforts. I am a Rand supporter. But, like Cruz, if all Rand ends up with is accolades from his admirers just for trying, I will probably lose respect for him like I did for Cruz.



Practically speaking, I think this may be the best goal he can achieve. So, I will wait and see what is his end game and judge him by what he actually accomplishes.

In the end I may end up supporting him anyway, but only because he is the lesser evil.

I'd say that is the goal both Paul is doing now and what Cruz was doing during the debt ceiling thing. Cruz knew he couldn't stop anything unless the people rose up and made it happen. My take is both guys are trying to raise awareness and try to get people involved.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I wouldn't say it's grandstanding. I'd say it's a senator finally standing up to protect the constitution before it erodes away completely.

It's also a subject that many left-leaners can and do get behind (if you're into Reddit at all... this stuff that Rand does spreads pretty well across both sides).

Will he win? Not likely... but ideally, more attention will be called as a result of it. Like or hate Rand Paul's politics or his crazy dad... he does bring both sides together very well in regards to privacy, drone strikes, etc.

What's so crazy about Dr. Ron Paul? Non-interventionist foreign policy? An economy based on sound money? Not instigating aggression? De-criminalization of most Schedule I drugs? Restoration of the Bill of Rights?