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.
> 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.)
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.