Is it possible Snowden is the opening salvo of Paul 2016?

[AtomicKitten]

Either Ron or Rand Paul ...

Rand Paul has been highly visible in the press and isn't shy about promoting a possible 2016 run. He seems to find a microphone concomitantly on the heels of Snowden's statements. I've had this feeling all along that this whole thing with Snowden is political theater.

amIright or

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. nicely counter balanced by Rand hiring a neo-confederate for his core staff

so I don't think we have to worry about anything from the Pauls.

Ron Paul could literally quadruple his vote percentage from last go round and I still couldn't care.

[flamingdem]

2. Who knows, but you can bet he'll build on it

since so many leaker luvers not only libertarians luv the Pauls.

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. Pretty far over on the unlikely side of the scale, IMO. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. The freepers certainly think so. They think they've found the formula, as evidenced by this:

[AtomicKitten]

7. For single-issue voters,

... this may be where the far left meets the far right. Gotta say I can't shake the feeling that the Pauls intend to harvest every vote they can squeeze from that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Doesn't seem to matter that libertarians stand against almost everything else liberals claim to.....

care about. I never knew there was such a difference between civil liberties, and civil rights until I heard of the Pauls. That's some crazy crap. Aside from the defense industry, they never met a corporation they wouldn't whore for. This rugged individualist b.s. is all about states' rights, and what's going on in the states right now, especially mine, is very troubling.

Some liberal activists, whom I used to respect, have lost their focus and their influence, because their tunnel vision is always trained on the White House, while the real enemy to our rights are rolling them back left & right. All we need is a nutjob like either of the Pauls appointing federal judges.

Women's reproductive health access, minority voting rights, college student voting rights, refusing federal funds to sustain the social safety net, refusal to set up the health exchanges for the uninsured. One day the activists among us will wake up to find they've been transported to a very different space in time, and wonder WTF happened. Well we know what's happened, ODS has rendered the activists ineffective. And that's just sad.

[NoPasaran]

32. "the Pauls intend to harvest every vote they can"

I think you mean "the Pauls intend to harvest every DOLLAR they can"

[AtomicKitten]

47. I saw that movie. :)

[Union Scribe]

58. Maybe Democrats should cut that off

by opposing vast overreaches by a basically unchecked corporate/intelligence alliance. Crazy, I know.

[ucrdem]

61. oops, wrong place, sorry

[ZombieHorde]

60. I love that picture. nt

[MjolnirTime]

5. This has been obvious all along.

A Giant Libertarian Ratfuck

[AtomicKitten]

8. It is suspicious. nt

[Coyotl]

77. Agreed, but Tea Party is George W. Bush all over again, created explicitely to rebrand Bush/Cheney

They do have one huge problem though, George W. Bush!



This strategy could very well blow up in their faces. Rand Paul wants to ride in on a Libertarian horse and mobilize an anti-Obama sentiment using a Bush crime. There definitely is a giant hole of epic proportions in bring attention to this issue, it is likely to harm the republicans far more, maybe even result in some of them going to jail by the time the Snowden revelations all play out.

[JI7]

6. i think he is hoping for Rand to become President so he can come back

and get the pardon

[Mojorabbit]

26. LOL :) nt

[RobertEarl]

9. If Paul comes out hard against NSA spying

That will gain him a lot of favorable attention.

That is why Democrats need to beat him to it and themselves come out hard against the NSA spying.

[L0oniX]

29. Oh I can see the shit now. If you are against NSA spying then you are with Paul. Epic stupidness.

[RobertEarl]

33. Yeah it is shit

Pretty lame. But if it makes them feel good to set us against each other, that is a crossed line. All we want is not to be probed by the government. Why do they have such a problem with freedom, I wonder.

[Rex]

10. No you could be spot on! Hard to tell with insane people.

They act so unpredictable.

[struggle4progress]

11. He's looking to play a big role in "Vote Third Party 2014"

[BenzoDia]

12. I dunno. Americans don't really seem to care about the spying and both Pauls have done and said a

A lot of kookie stuff.

[Mojorabbit]

27. They do but it depends on how the question is phrased.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/53767/nsa-surveillance-scandal-the-polls-are-in-and-nsa-spying-is-really-really-unpopular

[baldguy]

13. I wouldn't put it past either Paul to use Snowden.

And I wouldn't put it past Snowden to allow himself to be used.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Well, everybody else has used him. His father initially blamed Wikileaks, but he's since walked....

back his accusations. Wonder what that's about?

[RobertEarl]

34. Snowden is a pitbull

He's tearing up the competition. He will win and all those who fight him will bow to his great powers.

[gholtron]

55. Yaaaaaaaawn

He's a pussy.

[ucrdem]

14. Rancid rolled out a "4th Amendment Restoration Act" on June 6

Rand Paul to Introduce Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013

Mike Riggs|Jun. 6, 2013 2:24 pm

In the wake of reports that the NSA has collected millions of phone records from Verizon customers, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced today that he will introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 tomorrow, Friday, June 7. Here's the release from Paul's office:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/06/rand-paul-to-introduce-fourth-amendment

So I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "tie-in" as the say in Hollywood.

p.s. there were also "4th amendment rallies" on 4th (cute eh?), some reported here, and I don't know for sure if there was a direct a Paul tie-in, but I'm guessing there was.

[RobertEarl]

36. You have a problem with the 4th?

You don't like it when people stand up for the 4th and the rest of the constitution? Are you even a US citizen?

[ucrdem]

40. No, just with useless dog-whistle legislation

that has no chance of passing and if it did would serve no purpose beyond boosting the visibility of Rand Paul. Here's a link to the bill so you can see for yourself what a useless POS it is:

http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/4thAmdtRestoration.pdf

[Comrade Grumpy]

49. I saw for myself what the "useless POS" is. Really terrible:

"The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United
States Government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable
cause."

Wait, what's so bad about it?

[ucrdem]

53. Warrants are already required.

Needless to say electronic and phone communications have been the subjects of abundant legislative activity for at least the last couple of decades so I seriously doubt that there's a damn thing such a vaguely worded "law" could or would regulate.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. A very silly idea. Ron Paul is 77 today, so if you really think he is a possibility...

Outside the South, no offense, Rand looks like Deputy Dawg with a nutria on his head, his entire being is a national joke. He could not carry any major State even in a Republican Nut House Primary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Ok, this s the only response possible

[AtomicKitten]

17. keep your eye on Rand Paul

The fact that he and Snowden are running parallel campaigns may just be a coincidence, but I think the Pauls' influence is much more insidious than they are given credit for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I have covered his father's rallies for the paper

And locally we also cover libertarian politics. And what you are seeing is a coincidence, as well as a strange confluence of right wing libertarians and civil libertarians. Neither of the two major parties cares about civil rights. If he gets closed, he will be Dean screamed...yup...the game *is* rigged.

[AtomicKitten]

19. I wish Dr. Dean would run and/or Al Gore.

Seeing Rand Paul eye the WH really creeps me out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Rand Paul...or Howard Dean...

Will never, ever...get close to the nomination, let alone te White House.

Yup, I am that cynical. Gore's moved on.

[kickitup]

38. Rand Paul has cut his own political throat

with the neo-confederate on his staff business, so I agree with you that he won't get close to the nomination. I'm in Kentucky and even folks around here that are right wing won't like some of the Southern Avenger's former statements and actions. Lincoln was born in Kentucky, after all, and folks take pride in that.

Plus, he's just stupid. I mean, how politically ignorant would one have to be to buddy up with a neo-confederate who once toasted John Wilkes Booth if one had his eye on the presidency. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.

[frylock]

31. a rand paul run can only benefit the democrats

[AtomicKitten]

46. Rand Paul attracts flies like dog shit

and I think the possibility of resurrecting the ugliness of the teabaggers is bad for the country. It is horrifying to me that he and Ted Cruz are pining for the WH.

[Hydra]

64. Ok, I'll say it

Rand Paul wouldn't be an issue if the Democrats in Washington weren't playing footsie with each other and the Repubs in breaking the 4th amendment.

If you're worried about a Kook like Paul, tell them to knock that shit off and he won't have anything to play off of.

[FSogol]

21. Exactly. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

24. Yes and also hear ...

he's going to sing the US anthem at Sochi.

[Number23]

25. That is entirely plausible. K&R

[L0oniX]

28. Epic distraction. NSA, HLS,CIA, FBI and bad cops are the problems.

The people who won't defend the constitution are the problem. The one's who want to change the constitution to make this self destructive spying legal are the problem. The one's who defend this shit are the problem. The bull shit good cop bad cop politics is the problem. People with way too much money and way too much power are the problem. Politicians who say one thing and then do another are the problem. There are many much more important problems to attack than some leaker's background.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. I'm sorry, but when I read a diatribe like that. "Constitution" this, and "Constitution" that.

The language is just too reminiscent of these people, and they brought some ugly shit with them:











With so many convinced that their constitutional rights have been "shredded", perhaps it's time for "Constitutional" convention?

[L0oniX]

79. Epic refame fail: No! Being pro constitution does not make me a tea bagger. Thanks for playing.

[Major Hogwash]

30. It's about Rand Paul.

Not only did Rand Paul already mention Snowden by name in a speech, he didn't condemn him for being a traitor.

Just look at the organization that Greenwald started with Ellsberg, a Libertarian type front group, for your answer.

Yes, they are that transparent.

[UTUSN]

35. Neh, Libertarians (including the two PAULs *and* SNOWDEN) are IRRELEVANT beings. nt

[woo me with science]

37. The smear and distraction machine is in desperate overdrive, I see.

Meanwhile, the government is still spying on us.

[AtomicKitten]

41. If there was any, it was clearly directed at the Pauls.

It's weird that you assume my POV. I have said virtually nothing about the NSA/Snowden thing. Research it if you don't believe me. I'm just watching it play out because it's still in progress as is my opinion.

That said, I'm just watching the chess moves on the board by those that covet the WH. I'll say again Rand Paul eyeing the WH creeps me the hell out. Just watching his moves.

[woo me with science]

50. Perhaps your attention should be directed to the Democrats

who *should* own the issues of ending the surveillance/police state and the blood-for-profit war machine, instead of colluding with Republicans and the corporate ma$ter$ to protect and expand them.

[AtomicKitten]

56. I started a thread about the Pauls' coveting the WH.

There is no shortage of threads on what you want to talk about. Are you lost?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. I support the 4th amendment and so should you.

[AtomicKitten]

42. Okay. And why do you think I don't?

I have no idea why you would say that. Why are you assuming something about me that has no basis in fact?

[Warren Stupidity]

78. heh, that is ironic considering that your op is ridiculous speculation with no basis in fact.

[randome]

59. "Support the 4th Amendment." "Defend the Constitution." It's that simplistic to you, right?

We have 237 years of judicial fine-tuning of the 4th Amendment and the Constitution and all you can say about them is the above.

It's just like the Bible-thumpers saying 'Obey God's word.'

Life is not so simplistic. There are 300 million interpretations of the 4th Amendment and the Constitution in this country. Yet you think those catch-phrases stand on their own.

There are innumerable exceptions to the 4th Amendment in case you haven't been paying attention.

Fingerprinting. Import inspections. Breathalyzer tests. Metal detectors. Drug-sniffing dogs. Drug tests. DNA tests.

But with more than 2 centuries of refining of the 4th Amendment, you think it can be reduced to 'Support the 4th Amendment.'

I don't get that. I am tired of hearing platitudes no matter how well-intentioned and no matter from what political philosophy they spring from.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Actually the legal history of 4th amendment cases with respect to electronic communications does not

go back 237 years, not even close. Until Olmstead, 1928, there was no case law.

But you are correct, I did over simplify the issue. Either you think mass domestic surveillance is a gross violation of the 4th amendment or you don't, and if you don't you are a supporter of an authoritarian security state that I think is an abomination.

And yes it is that simple. It is a black and white issue.

[randome]

76. Sorry if I came across too vitrolic above.

But I'd just returned from watching Pacific Rim and I was full of monstrous rage!

I get what you're saying but I am not convinced we have a 'mass surveillance' situation on our hands due to the lack of Snowden's corroborating evidence.

If you think storing copies of phone metadata is the same thing as mass surveillance, I disagree with that so long as enough safeguards are put into place to prevent abuse. From what we know -admittedly little- there are enough safeguards (Carl Bernstein thinks there are, too.) or else Snowden would have stolen evidence of the abuse.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

43. I like to listen to CT. I just dont understand how some it accepted and others rejected. This looks

like CT to me.

[AtomicKitten]

52. Not really; I did not imply there was any complicity.

What I speculated about was are the Pauls glomming onto what is going on to boost their presence in the limelight? I did not say or imply anything else.

[rhett o rick]

54. You stated that "Snowden was possibly the opening salvo". Why is Snowden involved? nm

[AtomicKitten]

62. I have to be brief.

This isn't about Snowden. It's about the Pauls.

Please read what I've already written because I was on my way out the door a half-hour ago and the folks coming in to remind me of that are becoming a bit cranky.

Have a great weekend. Mine starts ..... now.

[rhett o rick]

65. Oh yeah, well have a great weekend yourself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. If you're saying "will Rand Paul try to use the NSA spying scandal", then, quite possibly

I wouldn't say that it is his 'opening salvo', though. It doesn't get him any support from typical Republicans at the moment - they're quite happy with the surveillance, and are eagerly calling Snowden a traitor. He'd already have the support of libertarians. What a stance on this would be is an issue he can say "look, I'm not part of the establishment" about. At some point he'll want to say that - probably when a more mainstream Republican is beating him in the primaries, and he's getting desperate. But, because most Republicans hate Snowden, it's not a guaranteed primary vote winner.

Paul's 'opening salvo' was the filibuster about domestic drones. That was much more popular with Republicans.

[Thinkingabout]

44. This will make my suspicions true in this whole Spy and Lie game. The patsy should out the game and

Get it over perhaps with a lesser charge. This would be in keeping with his reputation also

[Historic NY]

45. Two weasels.

[moondust]

48. Snowden/NSA surveillance is probably a tough issue for the right.

The rank-and-file anti-gubmint/libertarian nuts would seem to deplore that kind of gubmint intrusion on their privacy, while their authoritarian politicians would probably like to preserve the ability to spy on their political enemies (Nixon-like, should they ever get the opportunity), and maybe even expand the use of those databases and find a way to profit off them. At this point in time they would probably do most anything to get and keep absolute power, as Robert Reich is suggesting.

Nixon got caught because their plan required a physical break-in. NSA can break in from behind secret walls.

[Comrade Grumpy]

51. This probably belongs in creative speculation.

[ucrdem]

57. Rand Paul, yesterday: "I’m ‘Thinking About’ Running for President"

Rand Paul: I’m ‘Thinking About’ Running for President
July 11, 2013 8:12 PM by Sol Rieger
Leave a comment (0) Go to comments


Breitbart News: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Thursday that he is contemplating a run for president in 2016 and that he will likely make an announcement on a decision shortly after the 2014 midterm congressional elections.

“We’ve been thinking about it,” Paul said in a phone interview. “And we will continue to think about it probably until after the 2014 elections. I haven’t made a decision, it’s a big decision you know with regard to family and the extensive travel that’s involved with it. And then also just seeing where the country is going in the next year or two.”

http://jpupdates.com/2013/07/11/rand-paul-im-thinking-about-running-for-president/#13736831540611&action=collapse_widget&id=6346198

This isn't creative speculation.

[ucrdem]

63. Breitbat: "Paul leads the pack of potential 2016 GOP candidates in both Iowa and New Hampshire."

According to a new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey, Paul leads the pack of potential 2016 GOP candidates in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Paul’s 18 percent in the poll leads New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s 16 percent, 15 percent for former Vice Presidential candidate and House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), 14 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, 11 percent for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), 10 percent for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), 6 percent for former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, 2 percent for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and 1 percent for New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez.

Paul shot to the front of the pack in Iowa after Rubio took a five-point nose dive since PPP’s February poll, during which time Rubio has tried to shepherd a plan through Congress that would legalize America’s at least 11 million illegal immigrants before securing the border or fixing immigration law enforcement problems.

Paul has consistently led in New Hampshire as well, PPP notes. Last time PPP polled New Hampshire, he received 28 percent in comparison to Rubio’s 25 percent and Christie’s 14 percent.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/11/Exclusive-Rand-Paul-I-m-thinking-about-running-for-president-Americans-hungry-for-someone-who-will-stand-up

Yep, he's running alright, and as straight-up GOP, not a third-party whacko. We'll see how far he gets.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

66. Ron Paul Rand Paul Ron Paul Rand Paul

Oh yeah....cha-ching! Pay up, Libertarian fucknutz.

[winter is coming]

67. Snort. No. n/t

[LittleBlue]

68. Paul and his infernal agents are under my bed

FFS

You'd think Rand Paul is the antichrists the way DU talks about him. Some nefarious puppet master similar to what Bill Clinton represents to the right wing.

Truth is, his father never got far, and probably neither will he. He's had like one high profile filibuster as the only notable feat of his short senatorial career.

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. I don't know what's "under your bed", but the "agents" are certainly fond of this place.

"Take a look on Democratic Underground

They have the gov't paid trolls out, trying to limit the outrage & rebellion on there.

If that is the reaction of hard core Dems to the news stories on the NSA, I want to stoke up some more of it.

Lots of traffic on DU.

It's the most popular Dem internet site, except for Huffy Po - where everything meaningful gets censored."

http://www.dailypaul.com/288556/clapper-and-feinstein-get-caught-lying-big-time#comment-3103138

They don't like to be "censored".

[quinnox]

70. actually, I heard whispered rumors both Snowden and Paul are high level members of the illuminati

[Cha]

71. I've had the feeling since the beginning, too, AK..

that this is bad political theater.

Who knows about Rand Paul.. I think Ron has had his day. But, we can be sure that Rand will latch on to anything to get his big fucking blowhard mouth out there to rag on PBO.. with pipsqueak Snowden(who does look like the devil to me in his Russian PC pic) and Greenwald blowing it out their asses for the trio.

[Andy823]

74. I think you are right

Snowden is a Paulbot, as anyone can tell by the posts he made on the internet years ago about SS, whistleblowers, etc. This whole thing smells of political theater. The goal is simple, get the country all worked up over the NSA, and then let Ran jump in as the one candidate who you can "rely on" to end this "spying" on America.

Now I don't really see Rand Paul taking the republican nomination in 2016, but as others have stated in the past, I can see him as the VP choice of Jeb Bush.

[99Forever]

75. No.

You are wrong. It is about the UNConstitutional violation of the RIGHTS of hundreds of millions of LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS going about their daily lives.

Despite people like you TRYING to pretend it is about something else.