« previous   politics   next »

A few good men. Senators who voted against NDAA (or abstained)


By Dan8267   Follow   Wed, 4 Jan 2012, 10:26am PST   5,993 views   52 comments   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

NAYs ---13

Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Moran (R-KS)

That's 6 Republicans, 6 Democrats, and 1 independent voting in favor of Western Civilization. 1 Republican did not vote. The other 93 senators have no respect for your life, liberty, or rights.

« First     « Previous     Comments 13-52 of 52     Last »

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:33am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

Thanks, uomo. So who should we vote? And why?

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:34am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

uomo_senza_nome says

Yes, but we want policies grounded in REALITY. Where is that from Ron Paul?

So reality to you is the debt-financed fantasy where the losers and corrupt are rewarded and the savers are punished?

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:38am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 15

Anonymousone says

So who should we vote?

I am asking - Why vote?

A sane person would vote if they knew they have their representation in the Government (republic is the representation of the public). Tell me honestly - do we have a Government that represents the public today?

Can we ever have it if there is no campaign finance and lobbying reform?

Therefore, I'd heed George Carlin's advice: 'F--k 'em, I don't vote'.

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 16

Anonymousone says

So reality to you is the debt-financed fantasy where the losers and corrupt are rewarded and the savers are punished?

No, if you have read my posts for quite some time, you'd have realized by now that I vehemently oppose today's system. But the way to reform it is not through dogmatism, it is through a practical approach of recognizing the problem.

I don't have faith that this can happen in today's politics.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:40am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

uomo_senza_nome says

I am asking - Why vote?

I understand your point. It would be nice to hear the reasons why I should vote for the other candidates but many on this site seem to focus on bashing Ron Paul but never say who should we support.

Patrick   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:41am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

Anonymousone says

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist who doesn't want to rig the economy at the guise of making your life better. He simply wants to give you freedom.

Unfortunately, he does not distinguish beween income from productive work, and income from siphoning off the wealth of those who actually do productive work (via land rents, interest, capital gains, dividends, and inheritance).

Anonymousone says

And to those spreading lies that Ron Paul didn't vote for HR 1540, here's the house record:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll375.xml#N

Thanks for that! I was confusing the Senate and House votes earlier.

Now I see that stripping our civil rights is indeed mostly a Republican idea, but the Democrats were still in favor of such treason by a slight majority.

Votes for bill including permenent imprisonment without trial, yes no -> %yes:

Republican 227 6 -> 97.4% against the bill of rights
Democratic 95 90 -> 51.4% against the bill of rights

So I really have to give Ron Paul credit for voting against his own party on the NDAA, and on SOPA.

Anyway, I think it's marvelously entertaining watching the mainstream the Republican establishment convulse in horror at the thought of Ron Paul getting the nomination. That alone makes it worth registering as a Republican and voting to nominate him.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:43am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

It will be nice to discuss something like this:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:44am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

Anonymousone says

It would be nice to hear the reasons why I should vote for the other candidates but many on this site seem to focus on bashing Ron Paul but never say who should we support.

I can't give you any reasons to support anyone because IT DOESN'T MATTER what you do, when you can't have a say in calling the shots.

Since you are a vehement supporter of Ron Paul (as evidenced by your numerous threads), you should recognize that there are practical issues that he doesn't address as well.

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:45am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

Anonymousone says

It will be nice to discuss something like this:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

I posted this link in the Link Submissions section, if you did not realize it already.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:46am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

Patrick says

Anyway, I think it's marvelously entertaining watching the mainstream the Republican establishment convulse in horror at the thought of Ron Paul getting the nomination. That alone makes it worth registering as a Republican and voting to nominate him.

+1

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:46am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

Patrick says

Anyway, I think it's marvelously entertaining watching the mainstream the Republican establishment convulse in horror at the thought of Ron Paul getting the nomination. That alone makes it worth registering as a Republican and voting to nominate him.

Agreed. It is pretty f-ing unbelievable how unprincipled the mainstream Republicans are.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:49am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 24

uomo_senza_nome says

Since you are a vehement supporter of Ron Paul (as evidenced by your numerous threads), you should recognize that there are practical issues that he doesn't address as well.

Like I said many times, Ron Paul may not be the perfect candidate and we may disagree with him on other issues. Isn't that reality? Is there a perfect candidate?

Patrick   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:50am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 25

uomo_senza_nome says

All debt is not slavery. There's something called marginal productivity of debt.

True, I'm talking about debt for consumption, especially mortgage debt.

Debt for investing in productive capacity can potentially be very worthwhile. Say to purchase capital equipment that you know you can use profitably, where the profit is greater than the interest payment. That kind of debt is fine, IMHO.

Even mortgage debt is possibly OK if the borrower pays less overall than he would renting the same place. I'm just begging people to actually do that calculation, and demanding that the government stop facilitating the self-entrapment of so many millions of people.

Student loans have become a lot like housing. The debt can be worthwhile if the future income gains more than cover the interest. But student loan debt subsidies got into a vicious circle, where the increased financing just led to increased tuition, and blew right past any semblance of financial reason.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:52am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

uomo_senza_nome says

I posted this link in the Link Submissions section, if you did not realize it already.

Yes. I also posted it in the politics section.

Here's another good one:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:52am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

I say don't vote.

"Well, if you don't choose between Twiddledum and Tweedledummer, you're helping bad things happen."

How so? By forcing myself to choose between two shitty options, aren't I giving my consent to Bullshit? It's not like I'll be getting something I really care about while making concessions on other things.

My three things are: Reciprocal Trade, Civil Liberties, and the end of the Pax Americana.

BOTH major parties' candidates are antithetical to all of my main concerns, as expressed by deed, whatever comes out of their mouths. Politicians are better judged by the former rather than the latter.

I reject the Sixth Party System and the Culture War and won't be stampeded to vote over Wedge Issues. My issues are mostly guns and butter shit.

The issue isn't Tradition vs. Tolerance, it's Neofeudalism.

Neofeudalism with or without Gay Marriage is still neofeudalism.

Vote no one.

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:56am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 28

Anonymousone says

Like I said many times, Ron Paul may not be the perfect candidate and we may disagree with him on other issues. Isn't that reality? Is there a perfect candidate?

The issues that one can disagree might be sound enough to not vote for Ron Paul at all. That's what I'm trying to say.

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:57am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

Patrick says

Student loans have become a lot like housing. The debt can be worthwhile if the future income gains more than cover the interest. But student loan debt subsidies got into a vicious circle, where the increased financing just led to increased tuition, and blew right past any semblance of financial reason.

Agree. Student Loans is a 1-trillion+ growing bubble that will blow up sometime in the future.

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 3:58am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

thunderlips11 says

How so? By forcing myself to choose between two shitty options, aren't I giving my consent to Bullshit? It's not like I'll be getting something I really care about while making concessions on other things.

Spot on.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 4:01am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

uomo_senza_nome says

thunderlips11 says

How so? By forcing myself to choose between two shitty options, aren't I giving my consent to Bullshit? It's not like I'll be getting something I really care about while making concessions on other things.

Spot on.

If you truly believe that, what are you doing to convince the people not to vote? If there's any, what are the chances that you'll succeed? Is it based on reality?

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 4:05am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

Anonymousone says

If you truly believe that, what are you doing to convince the people not to vote?

LOL. I don't have the urge to convince anyone. Since you asked, I answered. But everyone has the right to make a choice. If people want to live in an illusion that they have a freedom of choice when it comes to politics, that is something they choose to do.

Anonymousone says

If there's any, what are the chances that you'll succeed? Is it based on reality?

Since there's no effort involved, there's no expectation of success. The reasoning as to why one shouldn't vote is based in reality. Whether they choose to accept the reality or not is for them to make.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 4:07am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 33

uomo_senza_nome says

LOL. I don't have the urge to convince anyone. Since you asked, I answered. But everyone has the right to make a choice.

Good counter. Thanks. I guess reality is or can be subjective.

Let me ask again those who plan to vote, who should we support and why?

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 4:11am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 34

Patrick says

I agree. Ron Paul does not ever in any way question the right of the 1% to take more and more from the 99% via non-productive ownership of everything, forever.

True. Ron Paul is the quintessence of the Libertarian Party. He wants to get as close to anarchy -- and I mean the absence of government, not chaos and violence -- as physically possible. This, of course, allows the powerful to become more powerful and the rich to become more rich.

That is a fundamental flaw in the Libertarian philosophy. However, I don't see how Ron Paul as president could do much to further inequality. The social programs and federal agencies he wants to cut, he won't be able to. That's up to Congress. At worst, he would veto new legislation relating to social safety net programs. However, given the greater threat of unrestricted government power and no accountability, this doesn't even come close to being important.

Patrick says

cutting Social Security and Medicare to zero

Those are precisely the programs that no president could cut even if he wanted to. Even if Ron Paul had the support of Congress, he couldn't cut those programs. And Congress sure isn't going to support cutting programs that are highly popular to the voters. Yes, it's valid to argue that because of his Libertarian views, Ron Paul would be an ineffective president, like Jimmy Carter was. But given the recent passage of the NDAA, Paul's the only chance we have to restrict executive power short of a violent revolution.

Patrick says

BUT he is clearly against imprisonment of US citizens forever without trial (NDAA) and extra-judicial censorship of the internet without appeal (SOPA). Is there any other candidate that would respect our civil rights?

Without civil rights, we can never fix anything else.

Yep, and that's what makes Ron Paul worth electing even with his crazy ideas.

uomo_senza_nome says

I think that's because he's stuck in the ideology of free market capitalism when the reality is that such a system is a total Randian myth. Can never exist in real life.

Close, but I don't think it's so much a about free-market religion with Libertarians. I think it's because they simply refuse to acknowledge two important things: the concept of public property and the field of game theory. If you took the core Libertarian philosophy and added these two concepts, it would be great. Granted, game theory is incompatible with the religion of free-markets.

Anonymousone says

Ron Paul is the champion of liberty. Even the ACLU gives him higher marks than Obama.

Why would Obama get good marks on civil rights. He's awful.

Anonymousone says

Now let me hear why I should vote for the others.

And that's what it really comes down to. I don't expect Ron Paul to be a great president, but given the utter destruction of rights over the past decade, he's the only candidate that's a defense against the greatest threat to America ever: our own government.

uomo_senza_nome says

Without a credit system, nobody can plan for their future.

I wouldn't go that far. Credit, when used properly, makes planning for the future much easier, but it would still be possible with just savings as long as savings could hold their value.

Anonymousone says

Thank,s Uomo. So who should we vote? And why?

Ron Paul is my first choice, but if it comes down to between Romney and Obama, I'll go Romney. And that's not something I'd thought I'd say a month ago, but the passage of the NDAA has convinced me that Obama is even more evil than Bush -- something else I thought I'd never say.

I suppose the one silver lining is that if the NDAA causes Obama to lose the election, and clearly so, it might just send a message to all the politicians in Washington.

Anonymousone says

uomo_senza_nome says

Yes, but we want policies grounded in REALITY. Where is that from Ron Paul?

So reality to you is the debt-financed fantasy?

No, uomo_senza_nome, like me, is an Austrian Economics advocate. Ron Paul is as well. What uomo_senza_nome means is that Ron Paul is an idealist who sticks to black-and-white principles including an unquestioning faith in unregulated markets and the invisible hand. However, any system can be gamed, so there must be ways to prevent the few from taking advantage of the many by rigging the system and acting like parasites. Ron Paul believes incorrectly that if you stick by the simple principles of free markets and no government, the system will work automagically to purge itself of parasites. Those of us who study game theory and complex systems know this to be a fallacy.

We agree with many of Ron Paul's principles, but we apply them in practical ways that take into account how injustices and parasitic behavior creep into a system and form their own niches. In other words, a principle drives goals, but is not the algorithm for implementing a system.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 4:17am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

Dan8267 says

Now let me hear why I should vote for the others.

And that's what it really comes down to.

+1

Unfortunately, many if not most of Ron Paul supporters will not support the other candidates and they are growing fast. Ron Paul is the only candidate that are attracting a lot of the young and independent voters. Even some democrats are now for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is now surging in NH as well:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/05/ron-paul-surging-in-new-hampshire-following-top-tier-finish-in-iowa

If we can at least agree on this, our only chance is to stick with Ron Paul and help him gain more support. What do you think?

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 4:44am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

Anonymousone says

Unfortunately, many if not most of Ron Paul supporters will not support the other candidates and they are growing fast

Support is simply voting for the lesser of the two evils. Having signed the NDAA, I've switch from reluctantly siding with Obama over all non-Paul candidates to reluctantly siding with any candidate against Obama.

I suspect that signing the NDAA is going to convince a lot of soulless flip-flopping whores, er independents, like me to go from Obama to any Republican.

Anonymousone says

What do you think?

We're fucked.

I guess the good thing is that Ron Paul is closest to getting nominated as he has ever come in his life. I've been quite surprised that he's steadily holding the second place and not losing support. He's been consistently close to first place.

The question is whether the Romney haters will cave into Romney or go for Ron Paul. I still think that Ron Paul has less than a 50% chance of getting the Republican nomination.

However, I do think that out of all Republican candidates, Ron Paul stands the best chance in the general election. Die hard party members will always vote for their party, but the flip-floppers and centrist voters are more likely to vote for Ron Paul than the other Republicans. I can even see both The Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party protesters voting for Paul. I don't see OWS voting for Romney.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 4:52am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 37

Dan8267 says

I can even see both The Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party protesters voting for Paul. I don't see OWS voting for Romney.

Fanned.

Anonymousone   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 4:54am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

And let's not forget that the candidates have yet to declare who will be their running mate. This can make or break them too.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 5 Jan 2012, 5:38am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 39

I can see Romney partnering up with just about any other candidate. I can't see Paul choosing any of the other candidates as a running mate. I think he would pick someone who didn't run in the primaries.

Now, I don't think this is going to happen, but I could imagine Ron Paul picking Peter Schiff as a running mate. The have very similar views. I don't think it would be a good choice for bolstering support though.

As a side note, I was pretty shocked that Christine O'Donnell threw her support to Romney. I would have thought she'd go with a more evangelical choice.