Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You'll just never understand the concept of liberty will you? If you are not free to discriminate then you are not really free. Freedom of association is one of the lynchpins of a truly free society. I guess some people, such as yourself, need the government to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Ironically you probably would have been on the side of Jim Crow because well the government told us it was for our own good.
Oh I understand what you're saying; I just don't care. When a politician makes "freedom to discriminate" their priority- in spite of all the other problems they could deal with- that right there tells me all I need to know about them.
It WILL play well among racist white Southerners. Might even help him out in the primary seeings how the GOP is these days the default party of White Nationalism.
But on a national level, it makes him unelectable
I like his stances on civil forfeiture and foreign policy- but just like when any Republican talks about civil liberties... it's all talk. If he ever were to make it into office, top priority would be more upward wealth redistribution. Civil Forfeiture would be an afterthought at best.
And besides... a Republican who doesn't to be at war with every country on earth? That alone will probably prevent his nomination.
The only candidate in the race right now with a truly different foreign policy. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, and to a lesser extent Ted Cruz all have the same neocon foreign policy.
Yep, and if Paul does not win one of the war hawks you mention will.
Yes, let's focus on the here and now, and not legislation that passed when Rand Paul was a toddler.
I think he articulates his positions quite well, on issues that are important today, not long settled law.
It doesn't inspire trust or confidence when he cannot clearly explain his position on settled issues except to say he disagrees with how they were settled.
Like I said- hemming and hawing. What you've quoted there is a really wordy and convoluted version of the "freedom of association" argument against the Civil Rights Act.
In other words... clearer words: Rand Paul is lamenting the fact that the Civil Rights Act doesn't allow businesses to discriminate. Period.
It took nearly 100 years to pass provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It's ridiculous.
Oh I understand what you're saying; I just don't care. When a politician makes "freedom to discriminate" their priority- in spite of all the other problems they could deal with- that right there tells me all I need to know about them.
It WILL play well among racist white Southerners. Might even help him out in the primary seeings how the GOP is these days the default party of White Nationalism.
But on a national level, it makes him unelectable
I like his stances on civil forfeiture and foreign policy- but just like when any Republican talks about civil liberties... it's all talk. If he ever were to make it into office, top priority would be more upward wealth redistribution. Civil Forfeiture would be an afterthought at best.
And besides... a Republican who doesn't to be at war with every country on earth? That alone will probably prevent his nomination.
You're wrong about his civil liberties stance being "just talk." He has made them key in his entire career in the Senate. He's voted against renewing the Patriot Act, against NDAA, filibustered drone strikes on U.S. citizens, introduced legislation to end the "war" on drugs, introduced legislation to end civil asset forfeiture, etc. He's the real deal in that regard.
It doesn't inspire trust or confidence when he cannot clearly explain his position on settled issues except to say he disagrees with how they were settled.
A lot of people have an issue with how the law was settled and I for one think that the law shouldn't cover private business either. That being said is that really a pressing issue? Do you really think Rand Paul is going to unilaterally end the CRA once elected? Do you think he's some double secret racist who works to end the "war" on drugs, civil forfeiture, and restore the 4th and 5th amendments, only so he can get elected and end legislation that passed when he was a little boy?
I'm telling you people pick the tiniest nits with Rand Paul, just like they did with his father. Rand Paul stands for the Bill of Rights, adherence to the Constitution, a restrained foreign policy of non-intervention, and reigning in government to allow America to prosper. In a word, he stands for freedom. When you put in those terms people can get on board but then they're like "well I don't like that he has a different idea on 50 year old legislation" or "well he doesn't want to cut all foreign aid immediately, but rather he wants to work incrementally towards that goal...flip flopper."
A lot of people have an issue with how the law was settled and I for one think that the law shouldn't cover private business either. That being said is that really a pressing issue? Do you really think Rand Paul is going to unilaterally end the CRA once elected? Do you think he's some double secret racist who works to end the "war" on drugs, civil forfeiture, and restore the 4th and 5th amendments, only so he can get elected and end legislation that passed when he was a little boy?
I'm telling you people pick the tiniest nits with Rand Paul, just like they did with his father. Rand Paul stands for the Bill of Rights, adherence to the Constitution, a restrained foreign policy of non-intervention, and reigning in government to allow America to prosper. In a word, he stands for freedom. When you put in those terms people can get on board but then they're like "well I don't like that he has a different idea on 50 year old legislation" or "well he doesn't want to cut all foreign aid immediately, but rather he wants to work incrementally towards that goal...flip flopper."
People don't believe him and/or don't trust him.
On quite a few occasions, he's told Southerners that he opposes the Civil Rights Act. Would you like me to post the videos? That alone- the fact that he's made LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION a priority in his political career- is a pretty good reason not to trust the guy.
Complain about people all you like. PEOPLE have to vote for him. Only hateful conservatives will vote for a guy who wants to legalize discrimination.
You're wrong about his civil liberties stance being "just talk." He has made them key in his entire career in the Senate. He's voted against renewing the Patriot Act, against NDAA, filibustered drone strikes on U.S. citizens, introduced legislation to end the "war" on drugs, introduced legislation to end civil asset forfeiture, etc. He's the real deal in that regard.
And yet he's running as a member of the party that brought us the Patriot act? The party that opposes legalization of marijuana? The party that has never met a police power they didn't support (except those few that might be used against old white guys with money)? The party that BROUGHT us civil forfeiture?
His stance on marijuana legalization is lame and mealy-mouthed. This kind of **** is why people don't like or trust him.
And his filibuster about drones? Turns out he basically flip/flopped on that.
A lot of people have an issue with how the law was settled and I for one think that the law shouldn't cover private business either. That being said is that really a pressing issue? Do you really think Rand Paul is going to unilaterally end the CRA once elected? Do you think he's some double secret racist who works to end the "war" on drugs, civil forfeiture, and restore the 4th and 5th amendments, only so he can get elected and end legislation that passed when he was a little boy?
I'm telling you people pick the tiniest nits with Rand Paul, just like they did with his father. Rand Paul stands for the Bill of Rights, adherence to the Constitution, a restrained foreign policy of non-intervention, and reigning in government to allow America to prosper. In a word, he stands for freedom. When you put in those terms people can get on board but then they're like "well I don't like that he has a different idea on 50 year old legislation" or "well he doesn't want to cut all foreign aid immediately, but rather he wants to work incrementally towards that goal...flip flopper."
Civil rights will always be important. I'm not worried about Rand Paul doing any of the things you've mentioned. He sometimes speaks about the 'dystopian nightmares' he seems to have - the people have heard these stories before. I don't think he's different, possibly more fearful than most. He doesn't inspire confidence or trust.
And yet he's running as a member of the party that brought us the Patriot act? The party that opposes legalization of marijuana? The party that has never met a police power they didn't support (except those few that might be used against old white guys with money)? The party that BROUGHT us civil forfeiture?
His stance on marijuana legalization is lame and mealy-mouthed. This kind of **** is why people don't like or trust him.
And his filibuster about drones? Turns out he basically flip/flopped on that.
One of the things I've wondered about Ron & Rand Paul is their party affiliation. They run as Republicans yet they claim not to be (or something like that). It seems unclear, & again, doesn't inspire trust or confidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You'll just never understand the concept of liberty will you? If you are not free to discriminate then you are not really free. Freedom of association is one of the lynchpins of a truly free society. I guess some people, such as yourself, need the government to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Ironically you probably would have been on the side of Jim Crow because well the government told us it was for our own good.
