8 ms·

The 14 votes against, FWIW: Baldwin (D-WI) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Coons (D-DE) Franken (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Markey (D-MA) Me

The 14 votes against, FWIW: Baldwin (D-WI) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Coons (D-DE) Franken (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Markey (D-MA) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY) Sanders (I-VT) Udall (D-NM) Warren (D-MA) Wyden (D-OR) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/10133932597/cisa-moves-forward-these-83-senators-just-voted-to-expand-surveillance.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/10133932597/cisa-...

robotkilla 11y ago
I'm honestly starting to think sander's is our last hope -- I was on the fence until seeing this. Meanwhile he is getting undermined by the media.
- Donzo 11y ago
  Not so on social media, however, which makes this election really interesting: we'll be able to see to what extent the old guard (broadcast news networks) reigns supreme.
  - chippy 11y ago
    and to what extent the twittering classes does or does not really effect things.
- bradleyankrom 11y ago
  Not to mention the DNC.
  - ChrisAntaki 11y ago
    "Remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair" http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/remove-debbie-wasserman?source=s.tw&r_by=14696943 http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/remove-debbie-wasserman?sou... 40,491 signatures so far
- bratsche 11y ago
  There's a group of tech volunteers working on apps to try to help out his campaign. I'm sure they would welcome any additional help from HN people.
  - robotkilla 11y ago
    links? i just signed an acceptance letter for a FT job but would be willing to help remotely if possible.
    - danielnaab 11y ago
      There are a lot of people building their own projects, as well as volunteering time to official campaign projects. https://coders.forsanders.com/ https://coders.forsanders.com/
- steve19 11y ago
  When do I remember hearing that before.... back in 2008. Everyone was saying the exact same thing. If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself. If anything he is being undermined by the DNC, not the media. The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for thier blatant support of one candidate over the other(s) .
  - RobertoG 11y ago
    No candidate is going to be perfect. Even if there was an hypothetically perfect candidate (for any definition of perfect) he/she will have to compromise when in power. The thing with Sanders, I think, is that he has been around for so long and he has been so consistent, that you can know what he think about most issues: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VnWKsF42xC0 https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sande...
  - robotkilla 11y ago
    > If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself i don't recall obama being an actual socialist or talking about breaking up the banks. i do recall obama being a dem and giving the banks bailout money though. > he is being undermined by the DNC agreed.
  - morgante 11y ago
    I do expect Sanders to be different because he has a 20 year record of being incredibly consistent in his political views. His ideological framework hasn't changed in the entire time I've been following him (I'm from Vermont) and that includes going from mayor of Burlington up through US Senator. He's also not saying things to get elected. He'd have a much better chance if he dropped some of his more socialist rhetoric, but he genuinely believes it.
- chongli 11y ago
  Assume he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Judging by the way congress operates right now, not much.
  - mahranch 11y ago
    > he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. If someone like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders got into office, a little would be different, especially with regards to foreign policy, but without a pliable or cooperative congress, literally nothing would get done. It would be a waste of 4 years. People overestimate just how much power the president has. Even with executive orders, there's only so much a president can do within the law. If you want universal health care, or MJ legalized, or CISA repealed, a president can't do that by himself, that requires congress. Presidential elections are a red herring I'm afraid, and that's no exaggeration. If you want true and real governmental change, it requires you to vote the right congressmen and senators into the government.
    - jklinger410 11y ago
      >Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against. I understand why you feel like you're correct in naysaying and feeling like you're adding something to the conversation by being contrary. Unfortunately you're setting up a bit of a strawman, as if people who support Bernie feel like somehow he's going to magically change everything by himself. Bernie himself said that will not be the case, and you're mostly just arguing people who have little understanding of government, who honestly aren't even taking part in this conversation. Bernie is probably the most likely candidate to promote the idea in your comment anyway, as he's the only candidate who I feel truly wants to change the system. So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Bernie. He's the only one talking about political revolution, which is what would be necessary for real change.
      - 11y ago
ChrisAntaki 11y ago
Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin are pretty consistent when it comes to supporting privacy and the internet. They were actually the only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] who also supported net neutrality [2]. Both also voted against the "Patriot" Act in 2001, while they served in the House [3]. [1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00201 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c... [2] http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/us-senator-tammy-baldwin-statement-on-net-neutrality http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/us-senator-tamm... & http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-net-neutrality-markey-leads-senate-dems-in-call-to-reclassify-broadband-as-a-utility http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-... [3] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
- um_ya 11y ago
  Don't forget Rand Paul
  - ChrisAntaki 11y ago
    Rand Paul is actually fighting against net neutrality http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-neutrality-idUSKBN0NK21620150429 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-neutrality-id...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - jamoes 11y ago
      Net neutrality, as it's currently being implemented, grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. This regulatory power has the potential to be abused. So, Rand Paul being against it is consistent with his general philosophy of less government intervention.
      - jrcii 11y ago
herbig 11y ago
I'm a very liberal persion, but I really like Rand Paul. I just wish he didn't think gays were going to burn in hell for all eternity, or at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live. The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live according to his religious beliefs.
- spo81rty 11y ago
  I've always felt that was how Paul believed. He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman but doesn't think the government should be involved in defining it.
  - Gracana 11y ago
    In my experience, people with those beliefs (conservative views on marriage && thinks government should not be involved) tend to protect the status quo. It's nice to say that the government shouldn't be involved, but meanwhile it would be really great and really easy if we just allowed same-sex couples to have the same rights. But that's the arbitrary (read: not at all arbitrary) point where "government involvement" becomes too much for them.
  - agildehaus 11y ago
    He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.
    - insensible 11y ago
      That's the big-government position. You can be in favor of a particular issue without subscribing to this view.
    - mattlutze 11y ago
      State governments deciding is what led to federal Supreme Court action. The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out. The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.
api 11y ago
Sanders/Paul 2016! Not a joke. I would vote for it.
- mapt 11y ago
  One of the few concrete functions of the Vice President once elected, is to serve as a more extreme alternative to the political positions of the President. That way, nobody opposed to the President's platform can assassinate the President in the hopes of killing that platform, because it will only be replaced with a worse version. This is not the case in an across-the-aisle Presidency. There are lots of Paul supporters who would like to see Sanders dead, and a whole bunch of them have guns and are fond of out-of-the-box thinking about their liberty. I spent a few months participating in online communities associated with Ron Paul back in 2007; It was enlightening, though it left me feeling a little soiled.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    The broader problem is that the Vice President has no real power. You can't balance a Presidency with an across-the-aisle candidate because the Vice President can't meaningfully do anything without the President's assent. The interesting thing is if the Democrats nominate Sanders and the Republicans nominate Paul.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      > The interesting thing is if the Democrats nominate Sanders and the Republicans nominate Paul. Interesting, if only due to its impossibility.
    - JshWright 11y ago
      Sanders is a long shot, but plausible. Paul is well outside the realm of possibility.
- hackuser 11y ago
  How about Paul/Sanders?
- deleted 11y ago
cpursley 11y ago
I think this list reinforces the fact that there's only one reasonable presidential candidate on each party's ticket.
0x09 11y ago
Note that these were the votes against the original CISA bill, NOT the bill that passed yesterday. Those votes were: Nay - Sen. Michael Crapo [R] Nay - Sen. Michael Enzi [R] Nay - Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R] Nay - Sen. John McCain [R] Nay - Sen. Jefferson “Jeff” Sessions [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Shelby [R] Nay - Sen. John Boozman [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Burr [R] Nay - Sen. Jeff Flake [R] Nay - Sen. Jerry Moran [R] Nay - Sen. Robert “Rob” Portman [R] Nay - Sen. Patrick “Pat” Toomey [R] Nay - Sen. David Vitter [R] Nay - Sen. John Thune [R] Nay - Sen. Bill Cassidy [R] Nay - Sen. James Risch [R] Nay - Sen. Tim Scott [R] Not Voting - Sen. Marco Rubio [R] Nay - Sen. Rand Paul [R] Nay - Sen. Mike Lee [R] Nay - Sen. Tom Cotton [R] Nay - Sen. Steve Daines [R] Nay - Sen. Deb Fischer [R] Nay - Sen. Ted Cruz [R] Nay - Sen. Dan Sullivan [R] Nay - Sen. Joni Ernst [R] Nay - Sen. Benjamin Sasse [R] Nay - Sen. Jeff Merkley [D] Nay - Sen. Joe Manchin III [D] Nay - Sen. Jon Tester [D] Nay - Sen. Claire McCaskill [D] Not Voting - Sen. Barbara Boxer [D] Nay - Sen. Ron Wyden [D] Nay - Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D] Nay - Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I] Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s339 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s339
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Another way of wording this: a list of people to consider re-electing. :)
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    HN regular posters? Are you kidding? They will bitch and moan all day long about loss of privacy and things they want and vote for anyone with a D next to their name "for reasons". If they actually stood for what they claim to believe the chance of voting a for D is near nil and the R is next to nil (though go figure why the Republican establishment is in such a tizzy - Cruz doesn't put them first and Trump isn't one of them) Its like Reddit but with an orange banner here.
    - an_ko 11y ago
      Your post condenses to “Everyone here sucks because <hostile overgeneralisations>”. Please try to be more constructive in your criticism.
jimhefferon 11y ago
Yeah VT!

robotkilla 11y ago

I'm honestly starting to think sander's is our last hope -- I was on the fence until seeing this. Meanwhile he is getting undermined by the media.

Donzo 11y ago
Not so on social media, however, which makes this election really interesting: we'll be able to see to what extent the old guard (broadcast news networks) reigns supreme.
- chippy 11y ago
  and to what extent the twittering classes does or does not really effect things.
bradleyankrom 11y ago
Not to mention the DNC.
- ChrisAntaki 11y ago
  "Remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair" http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/remove-debbie-wasserman?source=s.tw&r_by=14696943 http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/remove-debbie-wasserman?sou... 40,491 signatures so far
bratsche 11y ago
There's a group of tech volunteers working on apps to try to help out his campaign. I'm sure they would welcome any additional help from HN people.
- robotkilla 11y ago
  links? i just signed an acceptance letter for a FT job but would be willing to help remotely if possible.
  - danielnaab 11y ago
    There are a lot of people building their own projects, as well as volunteering time to official campaign projects. https://coders.forsanders.com/ https://coders.forsanders.com/
steve19 11y ago
When do I remember hearing that before.... back in 2008. Everyone was saying the exact same thing. If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself. If anything he is being undermined by the DNC, not the media. The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for thier blatant support of one candidate over the other(s) .
- RobertoG 11y ago
  No candidate is going to be perfect. Even if there was an hypothetically perfect candidate (for any definition of perfect) he/she will have to compromise when in power. The thing with Sanders, I think, is that he has been around for so long and he has been so consistent, that you can know what he think about most issues: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VnWKsF42xC0 https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sande...
- robotkilla 11y ago
  > If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself i don't recall obama being an actual socialist or talking about breaking up the banks. i do recall obama being a dem and giving the banks bailout money though. > he is being undermined by the DNC agreed.
- morgante 11y ago
  I do expect Sanders to be different because he has a 20 year record of being incredibly consistent in his political views. His ideological framework hasn't changed in the entire time I've been following him (I'm from Vermont) and that includes going from mayor of Burlington up through US Senator. He's also not saying things to get elected. He'd have a much better chance if he dropped some of his more socialist rhetoric, but he genuinely believes it.
chongli 11y ago
Assume he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Judging by the way congress operates right now, not much.
- mahranch 11y ago
  > he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. If someone like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders got into office, a little would be different, especially with regards to foreign policy, but without a pliable or cooperative congress, literally nothing would get done. It would be a waste of 4 years. People overestimate just how much power the president has. Even with executive orders, there's only so much a president can do within the law. If you want universal health care, or MJ legalized, or CISA repealed, a president can't do that by himself, that requires congress. Presidential elections are a red herring I'm afraid, and that's no exaggeration. If you want true and real governmental change, it requires you to vote the right congressmen and senators into the government.
  - jklinger410 11y ago
    >Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against. I understand why you feel like you're correct in naysaying and feeling like you're adding something to the conversation by being contrary. Unfortunately you're setting up a bit of a strawman, as if people who support Bernie feel like somehow he's going to magically change everything by himself. Bernie himself said that will not be the case, and you're mostly just arguing people who have little understanding of government, who honestly aren't even taking part in this conversation. Bernie is probably the most likely candidate to promote the idea in your comment anyway, as he's the only candidate who I feel truly wants to change the system. So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Bernie. He's the only one talking about political revolution, which is what would be necessary for real change.
    - 11y ago

ChrisAntaki 11y ago

Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin are pretty consistent when it comes to supporting privacy and the internet. They were actually the only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] who also supported net neutrality [2]. Both also voted against the "Patriot" Act in 2001, while they served in the House [3]. [1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00201 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c... [2] http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/us-senator-tammy-baldwin-statement-on-net-neutrality http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/us-senator-tamm... & http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-net-neutrality-markey-leads-senate-dems-in-call-to-reclassify-broadband-as-a-utility http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-... [3] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

um_ya 11y ago
Don't forget Rand Paul
- ChrisAntaki 11y ago
  Rand Paul is actually fighting against net neutrality http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-neutrality-idUSKBN0NK21620150429 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-neutrality-id...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - jamoes 11y ago
    Net neutrality, as it's currently being implemented, grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. This regulatory power has the potential to be abused. So, Rand Paul being against it is consistent with his general philosophy of less government intervention.
    - jrcii 11y ago

herbig 11y ago

I'm a very liberal persion, but I really like Rand Paul. I just wish he didn't think gays were going to burn in hell for all eternity, or at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live. The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live according to his religious beliefs.

spo81rty 11y ago
I've always felt that was how Paul believed. He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman but doesn't think the government should be involved in defining it.
- Gracana 11y ago
  In my experience, people with those beliefs (conservative views on marriage && thinks government should not be involved) tend to protect the status quo. It's nice to say that the government shouldn't be involved, but meanwhile it would be really great and really easy if we just allowed same-sex couples to have the same rights. But that's the arbitrary (read: not at all arbitrary) point where "government involvement" becomes too much for them.
- agildehaus 11y ago
  He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.
  - insensible 11y ago
    That's the big-government position. You can be in favor of a particular issue without subscribing to this view.
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    State governments deciding is what led to federal Supreme Court action. The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out. The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.

api 11y ago

Sanders/Paul 2016! Not a joke. I would vote for it.

mapt 11y ago
One of the few concrete functions of the Vice President once elected, is to serve as a more extreme alternative to the political positions of the President. That way, nobody opposed to the President's platform can assassinate the President in the hopes of killing that platform, because it will only be replaced with a worse version. This is not the case in an across-the-aisle Presidency. There are lots of Paul supporters who would like to see Sanders dead, and a whole bunch of them have guns and are fond of out-of-the-box thinking about their liberty. I spent a few months participating in online communities associated with Ron Paul back in 2007; It was enlightening, though it left me feeling a little soiled.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  The broader problem is that the Vice President has no real power. You can't balance a Presidency with an across-the-aisle candidate because the Vice President can't meaningfully do anything without the President's assent. The interesting thing is if the Democrats nominate Sanders and the Republicans nominate Paul.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > The interesting thing is if the Democrats nominate Sanders and the Republicans nominate Paul. Interesting, if only due to its impossibility.
  - JshWright 11y ago
    Sanders is a long shot, but plausible. Paul is well outside the realm of possibility.
hackuser 11y ago
How about Paul/Sanders?
deleted 11y ago

cpursley 11y ago

I think this list reinforces the fact that there's only one reasonable presidential candidate on each party's ticket.

0x09 11y ago

Note that these were the votes against the original CISA bill, NOT the bill that passed yesterday. Those votes were: Nay - Sen. Michael Crapo [R] Nay - Sen. Michael Enzi [R] Nay - Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R] Nay - Sen. John McCain [R] Nay - Sen. Jefferson “Jeff” Sessions [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Shelby [R] Nay - Sen. John Boozman [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Burr [R] Nay - Sen. Jeff Flake [R] Nay - Sen. Jerry Moran [R] Nay - Sen. Robert “Rob” Portman [R] Nay - Sen. Patrick “Pat” Toomey [R] Nay - Sen. David Vitter [R] Nay - Sen. John Thune [R] Nay - Sen. Bill Cassidy [R] Nay - Sen. James Risch [R] Nay - Sen. Tim Scott [R] Not Voting - Sen. Marco Rubio [R] Nay - Sen. Rand Paul [R] Nay - Sen. Mike Lee [R] Nay - Sen. Tom Cotton [R] Nay - Sen. Steve Daines [R] Nay - Sen. Deb Fischer [R] Nay - Sen. Ted Cruz [R] Nay - Sen. Dan Sullivan [R] Nay - Sen. Joni Ernst [R] Nay - Sen. Benjamin Sasse [R] Nay - Sen. Jeff Merkley [D] Nay - Sen. Joe Manchin III [D] Nay - Sen. Jon Tester [D] Nay - Sen. Claire McCaskill [D] Not Voting - Sen. Barbara Boxer [D] Nay - Sen. Ron Wyden [D] Nay - Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D] Nay - Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I] Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s339 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s339

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Another way of wording this: a list of people to consider re-electing. :)
- Shivetya 11y ago
  HN regular posters? Are you kidding? They will bitch and moan all day long about loss of privacy and things they want and vote for anyone with a D next to their name "for reasons". If they actually stood for what they claim to believe the chance of voting a for D is near nil and the R is next to nil (though go figure why the Republican establishment is in such a tizzy - Cruz doesn't put them first and Trump isn't one of them) Its like Reddit but with an orange banner here.
  - an_ko 11y ago
    Your post condenses to “Everyone here sucks because <hostile overgeneralisations>”. Please try to be more constructive in your criticism.

jimhefferon 11y ago

Yeah VT!