Sure you're right, but if Obama lost his last election do you think they'd be any difference to the NSA today? Maybe Rand Paul cares more about the morals than the politics, maybe he doesn't. I don't like the guy, but whatever his motive I'm happy he's doing this. At the end of the day, both sides would be happy to claim morality when really just playing politics, so even if that is what he's doing, I don't see it as making him any worse than his colleagues or rivals.

So I assume you knew Obama was going to kill innocent children with an drone strike campaign larger than anything before, spy on the world, etc, and because of this you did not vote for him?

Well I didn't vote for anybody because I'm English. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, anyway.

I'm not arguing that Obama is good or shouldn't be blamed for NSA, I'm just saying that I believe had he not become president, it wouldn't have changed the NSA situation. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows, maybe a republican president right now would abolish the NSA, or maybe they would drop nukes all over Europe, I (and you) can't know exactly what would have happened. But if you disagree with my assumption that Obama losing wouldn't have lead to any different reaction to the NSA, then feel free to make that point. But apart from that, whether Obama is murdering kids with his bare hands or making the world an incredible place with his love, is irrelevant.

As to my own views, had I had US voting rights I would have voted for Obama, and by now would be (and am despite not voting) extremely upset by his actions in office. But I'm not sure my politics are relevant. My point was that I think that were the roles reversed, it would be a democrat wanting to fight the NSA, and a republican president keeping the status quo. And my point was that politicians on both sides consider both moral and political points before deciding to do something like this. I'd make that point whether I loved Rand Paul or hated him, whether I love the NSA or hate them.

My point is that if you would simply pay attention to people's actions and words, instead of simply assuming some sort of weird groupthink along partylines, you would have been able to predict people's actions like Obama. Because you have not done so, you claims about what would have been different are completely invalid.

It's not about Repulican or Democrat, both parties have many evil people in them. It's about the person. Just one simple example is that Obama voted for renewal of the Patriot Act. This alone should have been enough to not be surprised by this.

And yes, if Ron Paul had been elected, this would not have happened. 30 years of consistency.

30 years of consistency, but also 30 years of not having much power. Power does change people. Whether it would have changed him enough to have mattered appreciably here, or whether other concerns would have dominated, who can say? I'd bet he would have been consistent on this point, but it's not a certainty.

What is certain is power didn't change Obama - he's always been that way, and you need to pay attention to people's past before you put faith in them.

What is entirely more likely is that power did change Obama, because he is human and that is (studies show) how humans tend to work. What is more up in the air is whether it changed his position on surveillance. It's possible that it did not - but note that a vote on the Patriot Act is not directly a vote on this stuff, and that he spoke against similar stuff in the past.

You know this is Rand Paul, not Ron, right?

Rand Paul did not run for president in 2012. He has also only recently been elected as Senator, so he does not have a political record of 30 years.