3 ms·

Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty (as long as there are people voluntarily willing to provide care--and there will be--the

Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty (as long as there are people voluntarily willing to provide care--and there will be--there is no force involved). But going up against the entrenched interests to reign in defense and spying is going to take someone slightly nutty. So at least on this particular issue its a virtue. I'm aware that his politics comes with some, possibly many unsavory views, but I fully believe unchecked surveillance presents an existential crisis to America as we know it. Backsliding on marriage or abortion can be corrected in the future. There comes a point where there's no turning back the clock on ubiquitous surveillance.

adamnemecek 11y ago
> Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty It's not "false and nutty", it's either malicious or outright idiotic. Just fyi, Bernie Sanders' stance on NSA spying is very similar to Rand Paul's.
- hackinthebochs 11y ago
  If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion. But the fact that I haven't heard Sanders make surveillance the forefront of his campaign is a bit concerning. Also the fact that he didn't make an appearance at Paul's "filibuster" says quite a bit. Say what you want about how useless the filibuster was, lack of awareness of the facts around the surveillance issue is the biggest factor in the government's favor. Making a very loud and public stand against surveillance has tangible benefits. I was disappointed that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion. Not that you can tell much about who is likely to win the nomination this far out from the first primary (basically, what you can tell now is name recognition prior to significant campaigning, which would mislead as to the winner of the nomination in most elections where there isn't an incumbent President or Vice President in the primary.)

adamnemecek 11y ago

> Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty It's not "false and nutty", it's either malicious or outright idiotic. Just fyi, Bernie Sanders' stance on NSA spying is very similar to Rand Paul's.

hackinthebochs 11y ago
If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion. But the fact that I haven't heard Sanders make surveillance the forefront of his campaign is a bit concerning. Also the fact that he didn't make an appearance at Paul's "filibuster" says quite a bit. Say what you want about how useless the filibuster was, lack of awareness of the facts around the surveillance issue is the biggest factor in the government's favor. Making a very loud and public stand against surveillance has tangible benefits. I was disappointed that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If it came down to Sanders and Paul, it would be a tough decision to make and I'd probably lean Sanders out of concern for all the other issues. But at this point Paul is more likely to get the nomination for his party than Sanders so it seems like a moot discussion. Not that you can tell much about who is likely to win the nomination this far out from the first primary (basically, what you can tell now is name recognition prior to significant campaigning, which would mislead as to the winner of the nomination in most elections where there isn't an incumbent President or Vice President in the primary.)