FiveThirtyEight: "The Rand Paul Will Win Over Young Voters Myth"

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on ... the Civil Rights Act ... is hilarious.

Because this is totally a campaign issue and stuff. After all, Paul has called for repealing it a whopping zero times and has expressed zero interest in a future repeal attempt. Such an important issue to this campaign.

Because "whites only" signs are A-ok, as long as they're from a private business.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Are you really that big of a hack to include the CRA thing?

What are you on about? I know it's practically a requirement if you post about politics on the internet you must worship the Pauls (even if you're a "leftist"), but it's funny you'd call me a hack for stating a fact. He has stated multiple times he was okay with "whites only" signs as long as they were from a private business. Maybe he's backtracked since then, but I'm much more inclined to believe his previous statements, which by the way line up perfectly with his father bashing the CRA on the House floor as a "a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." By defending this, you're doing a pretty big disservice to your username.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html

[IceSpear]

He clarified what he meant and reaffirmed his support for it.  I didn't agree with his original comments, but I highly doubt it will be this big campaign issue.  It will matter about as much as Hillary's "broke" comment.

Why bother, Rock? They will defend anything Clinton does but lord forbid if Paul makes an odd comment.

It's funny you say that, since the "dead broke" comment ignited a month long media firestorm of Hillary bashing about how she was out of touch, Mitt Romney 2.0, etc. Paul's CRA comments got some buzz back in 2010 and then pretty much fizzled out, but expect it to be brought back up again, if not in the primary than certainly in the general election.

Anyway, one comment was a stupid but ultimately irrelevant gaffe that has little impact on anything, whereas Paul's pertains to an extremely important piece of legislation that protects the rights of minorities. I'd hardly call them equivalent. And it's not as if it was just a gaffe or a slip of the tongue for Paul, he was very consistent on the matter pre 2010.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

But... drones?

Believe it or, some people care more about not blowing up villages in the Middle East and violating the Constitutional rights of countless people than they do about Social Security. You might not like it, but sometimes people have different priorities than you.

Like allowing private businesses to turn away darkies because "muh private enterprise"? I'd think that's a tad more important than droning a terrorist enclave in Yemen or collecting telephone metadata, but that's just me.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

But... drones?

Believe it or, some people care more about not blowing up villages in the Middle East and violating the Constitutional rights of countless people than they do about Social Security. You might not like it, but sometimes people have different priorities than you.

Like allowing private businesses to turn away darkies because "muh private enterprise"? I'd think that's a tad more important than droning a terrorist enclave in Yemen or collecting telephone metadata, but that's just me.

Aww look at you thinking libertarians accept black people are human.

Why are practically all of your posts idiotic straw men? True leftists support ISIS, libertarians are racist, etc. Give me a break.

Then again, I guess claiming that Rand Paul is a racist helps you forget about all of the foreign blood on the hands of jihadist supporters like Hillary.

You didn't answer why the consitutional rights of white people to not get wiretapped takes precedence over the constitutional rights of minorities to not get turned away from their local grocery store if the owner doesn't take well to "their kind".

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

I'd hardly say Dems prioritize social issues more.  The 2012 campaign was about 110% trying to paint Romney as an evil, rich boogeyman.

True, but that was a personal character attack as opposed to an actual issue based attack. The difference between "Romney is an out of touch rich guy" and "We need to up the tax rates on out of touch rich guys and use it to fund _____", for instance.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

But... drones?

Believe it or, some people care more about not blowing up villages in the Middle East and violating the Constitutional rights of countless people than they do about Social Security. You might not like it, but sometimes people have different priorities than you.

Like allowing private businesses to turn away darkies because "muh private enterprise"? I'd think that's a tad more important than droning a terrorist enclave in Yemen or collecting telephone metadata, but that's just me.

Aww look at you thinking libertarians accept black people are human.

Why are practically all of your posts idiotic straw men? True leftists support ISIS, libertarians are racist, etc. Give me a break.

Then again, I guess claiming that Rand Paul is a racist helps you forget about all of the foreign blood on the hands of jihadist supporters like Hillary.

You didn't answer why the consitutional rights of white people to not get wiretapped takes precedence over the constitutional rights of minorities to not get turned away from their local grocery store if the owner doesn't take well to "their kind".

Why are white people the only one's who are affected by NSA spying?

They aren't, but I'm pretty sure for most minorities (and for anyone concerned with constitutional rights, for that matter) the latter issue would take precedence over the former. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending wiretapping, but to use that as evidence of how libertarians "fight for liberty", while glossing over the fact that some libertarians (including Ron Paul, and Rand until his flip flop) fight to deny liberty to minorities on a much greater scale is just ridiculous.

Anyway, with regards to Rand Paul and the CRA, either he was lying then or he's lying now. It was in no way a slip of the tongue or an accident. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he would either stick with his original position or admit that he was wrong and say that his position has changed. Say what you want about Hillary Clinton, at least she had the courage to state flat out that she was wrong about Iraq. Rand Paul hides behind a facade of "I was misquoted!/Taken out of context!" when confronted with his flip flops on both this and other things such as foreign aid to Israel.

[IceSpear]

Dude, have you ever actually read what Rand said? Back when he said that he was uncomfortable with one aspect of the law, he still maintained that he would've voted for it anyway as the majority of it far outweighed whatever doubts he might've had. So, he always supported the CRA, and is not lying about it now.

Anyway, suppose a hypothetical President Paul were to magically repeal the portion of the CRA applying to private businesses. Racist businesses are not just going to start springing up everywhere...most likely businesses in places that are already very racist and probably already do discriminate (like that guy in Oklahoma) will just be more open about it. Compare that to all of the people whose lives have been ruined by drug sentencing laws, people who have been held and tortured without trial, people who have been droned and bombed in the Middle East, people who have been illegally surveilled on their personal devices and groped in airports. Consider how many of these people have suffered like this because of racist profiling. When you take all of that into account, can't you at the very least see the reasoning behind people who think that Rand would be better than Hillary, even if they don't agree with him on an irrelevant issue he would never pursue if elected?

Yes, I did read what he said. The fact that he would've supported the CRA anyway, despite his bizarre misgivings coming from someone in the 21st century, doesn't change the fact that his preferred version of the CRA would allow private businesses to have "whites only" signs.

Yes, racist businesses wouldn't immediately spring up, because we live in the 21st century. However, even one is too many. But had Rand gotten his way back when the act was signed, ending segregation would've been a lot more difficult. And for what purpose? Solely due to ideology or "principle"?

The problem is you're assuming Paul will do the things you like and not do the things you dislike. In regards to what you listed, I'm pretty sure Obama talked really good on all those issues as well. How did that turn out again? Besides, my original statement wasn't really aimed at you anyway. You're a libertarian (presumably), so I'd expect you to support Paul. I talked about how I didn't understand why "leftists" would support Paul, but I'm guessing it goes back to the inexplicable "he'll do the things I like and not the things I dislike" thing.