Rand Paul (1 Viewer)

[sheerterror]

I think him having the name "Rand" works against him. Ron Paul sounds like a person. Rand Paul sounds too much like Ayn Rand. His distopian name is bad marketing. Randall. Randy. ok fine, but Rand make him sound like a fictional character.

His biggest drag will be that people who pay attention will see him as a repackaging of his father.... which to be fair, is basically what he is.

His father gained more and more steam as his political career wore on. Maybe he can maintain some of that momentum in a younger, albeit more mainstream version of Ron.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Im not a Rand Paul fanboy, but I have have great respect for what he and Sen Cory Booker are trying to do with reforming our prison and drug laws. I hope more people get on board and they are successful--it could create some very positive changes in our country.

 

[timschochet]

Im not a Rand Paul fanboy, but I have have great respect for what he and Sen Cory Booker are trying to do with reforming our prison and drug laws. I hope more people get on board and they are successful--it could create some very positive changes in our country.

Agreed. And Cory Booker continues to impress me.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There once was a guy named Rand Paul, his limerick skills sucked my balls.

-Jon Stewart

 

[Fennis]

I think him having the name "Rand" works against him. Ron Paul sounds like a person. Rand Paul sounds too much like Ayn Rand. His distopian name is bad marketing. Randall. Randy. ok fine, but Rand make him sound like a fictional character.

His biggest drag will be that people who pay attention will see him as a repackaging of his father.... which to be fair, is basically what he is.

His father gained more and more steam as his political career wore on. Maybe he can maintain some of that momentum in a younger, albeit more mainstream version of Ron.

if hes starts up with the lunancy of his father, I'm back out.

 

[Quez]

He seems to be distancing himself from his father to a certain extent.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

"The party can’t become the opposite of what it is," the libertarian-leaning senator said. "If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they’re either gonna stay home or -- I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues."

"So I don’t think we can completely flip. But can we become, to use the overused term, a bigger tent?" he added. "I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It’ll either continue to lose, or it’ll become a bigger place where there’s a mixture of opinions."

I understand this a bit, but it seems to me that it would be easier to just say "we were wrong" and move on. But he would have to "get it" first...

"That may not please everybody but historically our founding fathers didn’t register their marriage in Washington," he said this week in Iowa, according to CNN. "They registered it locally at the courthouse. I’d rather see it be a local issue, not a federal issue."

Yep, inappropriate and pointless government intrusion into liberty should be a local issue.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'd vote for Ted Cruz or Stalin before I voted for him. Not necessarily in that order.

 

[cstu]

"The party can’t become the opposite of what it is," the libertarian-leaning senator said. "If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they’re either gonna stay home or -- I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues."

"So I don’t think we can completely flip. But can we become, to use the overused term, a bigger tent?" he added. "I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It’ll either continue to lose, or it’ll become a bigger place where there’s a mixture of opinions."

I understand this a bit, but it seems to me that it would be easier to just say "we were wrong" and move on. But he would have to "get it" first...

"That may not please everybody but historically our founding fathers didn’t register their marriage in Washington," he said this week in Iowa, according to CNN. "They registered it locally at the courthouse. I’d rather see it be a local issue, not a federal issue."

Yep, inappropriate and pointless government intrusion into liberty should be a local issue.

Especially for a 'Libertarian'.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

This guy can't get out of his own way.

 

[joffer]

I'd vote for Ted Cruz or Stalin before I voted for him. Not necessarily in that order.

You're not serious. I'd vote for a dust bunny over Cruz

 

[timschochet]

I'd vote for Ted Cruz or Stalin before I voted for him. Not necessarily in that order.

Stalin didn't run in any elections. He wasn't into campaigning.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

"The party can’t become the opposite of what it is," the libertarian-leaning senator said. "If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they’re either gonna stay home or -- I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues."

"So I don’t think we can completely flip. But can we become, to use the overused term, a bigger tent?" he added. "I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It’ll either continue to lose, or it’ll become a bigger place where there’s a mixture of opinions."

I understand this a bit, but it seems to me that it would be easier to just say "we were wrong" and move on. But he would have to "get it" first...

"That may not please everybody but historically our founding fathers didn’t register their marriage in Washington," he said this week in Iowa, according to CNN. "They registered it locally at the courthouse. I’d rather see it be a local issue, not a federal issue."

Yep, inappropriate and pointless government intrusion into liberty should be a local issue.

That's actually a pretty realistic and astute take. It is an unfortunate fact of life that the GOP is not going to suddenly swing over to being pro-gay marriage. The best realistic alternative to the status quo is to get the party to shut up about it and not make this a litmus test that screens out candidates who are more centrist and alienates a bunch of voters.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Rand Paul on the Ferguson thing: We Must Demilitarize the Police.

Excerpt:

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action….

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement….

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri….

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

 

[Mister CIA]

Rand Paul on the Ferguson thing: We Must Demilitarize the Police.

Excerpt:

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action….

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement….

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri….

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

He's talking the talk but, like any other would-be candidate, I think there's a snowball's chance he walks the walk.

 

[Fennis]

Rand Paul on the Ferguson thing: We Must Demilitarize the Police.

.

He's talking the talk but, like any other would-be candidate, I think there's a snowball's chance he walks the walk.

For a republican talking this talk is walking the walk. At least as much as any politician.

ETA: More than other politicians

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Rand Paul on the Ferguson thing: We Must Demilitarize the Police.

Excerpt:

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action….

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement….

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri….

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

He's talking the talk but, like any other would-be candidate, I think there's a snowball's chance he walks the walk.

He won't be allowed to. But change usually starts with the "crazies talking nonsense". And I think the "crazies" of a decade ago are starting to sound less nonsensical to the masses everyday. Maybe in another decade Americans (except for a certain poster of course) will be less willing to allow their fear of shadows be reason to give up freedoms.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Rand Paul on the Ferguson thing: We Must Demilitarize the Police.

Excerpt:

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action….

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement….

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri….

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

He's talking the talk but, like any other would-be candidate, I think there's a snowball's chance he walks the walk.

What a strange response. Do you have any evidence that Rand Paul secretly is cool with militarized police forces and is just keeping that secret to himself?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

There's also the issue that Obama has enthusiastically continued the same policies on drug prohibition that have resulted in that prison population.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

There's also the issue that Obama has enthusiastically continued the same policies on drug prohibition that have resulted in that prison population.

I'm not sure he's been that enthusiastic. I wish that DOJ had left the Cailfornia dispensaries alone a bit more, as Holder had promised to do, but compared to his predecessors, Obama has backed off the throttle on the War on Drugs a bit. It's hard to imagine Reagan, for instance, shrugging and saying that enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington "isn't a priority."

 

[Politician Spock]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

There's also the issue that Obama has enthusiastically continued the same policies on drug prohibition that have resulted in that prison population.

I'm not sure he's been that enthusiastic. I wish that DOJ had left the Cailfornia dispensaries alone a bit more, as Holder had promised to do, but compared to his predecessors, Obama has backed off the throttle on the War on Drugs a bit. It's hard to imagine Reagan, for instance, shrugging and saying that enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington "isn't a priority."

I wonder if Reagan would change his stance today if he saw what his drug policy was costing us in our prison systems, and the overwhelming lack of benefit those costs provide to society. The Frontline episode a month or two ago solidified my change in stance on the matter. Prisoning people for drugs is helping no one.

 

[fourd]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

There's also the issue that Obama has enthusiastically continued the same policies on drug prohibition that have resulted in that prison population.

I'm not sure he's been that enthusiastic. I wish that DOJ had left the Cailfornia dispensaries alone a bit more, as Holder had promised to do, but compared to his predecessors, Obama has backed off the throttle on the War on Drugs a bit. It's hard to imagine Reagan, for instance, shrugging and saying that enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington "isn't a priority."

I wonder if Reagan would change his stance today if he saw what his drug policy was costing us in our prison systems, and the overwhelming lack of benefit those costs provide to society. The Frontline episode a month or two ago solidified my change in stance on the matter. Prisoning people for drugs is helping no one.

Except the private companies running prisons.

 

[humpback]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

There's also the issue that Obama has enthusiastically continued the same policies on drug prohibition that have resulted in that prison population.

I'm not sure he's been that enthusiastic. I wish that DOJ had left the Cailfornia dispensaries alone a bit more, as Holder had promised to do, but compared to his predecessors, Obama has backed off the throttle on the War on Drugs a bit. It's hard to imagine Reagan, for instance, shrugging and saying that enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington "isn't a priority."

I wonder if Reagan would change his stance today if he saw what his drug policy was costing us in our prison systems, and the overwhelming lack of benefit those costs provide to society. The Frontline episode a month or two ago solidified my change in stance on the matter. Prisoning people for drugs is helping no one.

Except the private companies running prisons.

As well as the unions/employees of public ones (who still house the vast majority of prisoners), lobbyists and politicians.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

Obama did say that with regard to the Cambridge (beer summit) incident.

However RP is peaking on his drug leniency agenda, not the race issue.

 

[Fennis]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

Obama did say that with regard to the Cambridge (beer summit) incident.

However RP is peaking on his drug leniency agenda, not the race issue.

that is a race issue

 

[urbanhack]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

There's also the issue that Obama has enthusiastically continued the same policies on drug prohibition that have resulted in that prison population.

I'm not sure he's been that enthusiastic. I wish that DOJ had left the Cailfornia dispensaries alone a bit more, as Holder had promised to do, but compared to his predecessors, Obama has backed off the throttle on the War on Drugs a bit. It's hard to imagine Reagan, for instance, shrugging and saying that enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington "isn't a priority."

I wonder if Reagan would change his stance today if he saw what his drug policy was costing us in our prison systems, and the overwhelming lack of benefit those costs provide to society. The Frontline episode a month or two ago solidified my change in stance on the matter. Prisoning people for drugs is helping no one.

Except the private companies running prisons.

As well as the unions/employees of public ones (who still house the vast majority of prisoners), lobbyists and politicians.

LOL

 

[humpback]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

There's also the issue that Obama has enthusiastically continued the same policies on drug prohibition that have resulted in that prison population.

I'm not sure he's been that enthusiastic. I wish that DOJ had left the Cailfornia dispensaries alone a bit more, as Holder had promised to do, but compared to his predecessors, Obama has backed off the throttle on the War on Drugs a bit. It's hard to imagine Reagan, for instance, shrugging and saying that enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington "isn't a priority."

I wonder if Reagan would change his stance today if he saw what his drug policy was costing us in our prison systems, and the overwhelming lack of benefit those costs provide to society. The Frontline episode a month or two ago solidified my change in stance on the matter. Prisoning people for drugs is helping no one.

Except the private companies running prisons.

As well as the unions/employees of public ones (who still house the vast majority of prisoners), lobbyists and politicians.

LOL

I don't get it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

There's also the issue that Obama has enthusiastically continued the same policies on drug prohibition that have resulted in that prison population.

I'm not sure he's been that enthusiastic. I wish that DOJ had left the Cailfornia dispensaries alone a bit more, as Holder had promised to do, but compared to his predecessors, Obama has backed off the throttle on the War on Drugs a bit. It's hard to imagine Reagan, for instance, shrugging and saying that enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington "isn't a priority."

I wonder if Reagan would change his stance today if he saw what his drug policy was costing us in our prison systems, and the overwhelming lack of benefit those costs provide to society. The Frontline episode a month or two ago solidified my change in stance on the matter. Prisoning people for drugs is helping no one.

Except the private companies running prisons.

As well as the unions/employees of public ones (who still house the vast majority of prisoners), lobbyists and politicians.

LOL

The CCPOA is a pretty powerful union in California. I don't think there's much debate about that or that they can be an institutional obstacle to reform. For instance, they seem to running a campaign against "realignment", i.e., releasing prisoners in California (they're clever enough to not be saying, "OMG, realignment!" but they point out when a released prisoner commits a crime).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

Obama did say that with regard to the Cambridge (beer summit) incident.

However RP is peaking on his drug leniency agenda, not the race issue.

that is a race issue

Not to Rand Paul it's not. This is the same guy who said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unnecessary and unconstitutional (IIRC).

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I think Paul is wrong about the Civil Rights Act, but I don't see what relevance that has to anything we've been talking about recently.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

Obama did say that with regard to the Cambridge (beer summit) incident.

However RP is peaking on his drug leniency agenda, not the race issue.

that is a race issue

Not to Rand Paul it's not. This is the same guy who said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unnecessary and unconstitutional (IIRC).

Why can't a person think that some parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were a bad idea and also that the war on drugs is a form of institutional racism? (Hint: Those are my thoughts exactly).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think Paul is wrong about the Civil Rights Act, but I don't see what relevance that has to anything we've been talking about recently.

Well it seems intellectually inconsistent to advocate throwing out the 1964 CRA while asserting that there needs to be federal reform of sentencing laws on the basis of inequitable results. I think his priority and cause is moderating the drug laws, I don't think he's really concerned with the racial differences.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

Obama did say that with regard to the Cambridge (beer summit) incident.

However RP is peaking on his drug leniency agenda, not the race issue.

that is a race issue

Not to Rand Paul it's not. This is the same guy who said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unnecessary and unconstitutional (IIRC).

Why can't a person think that some parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were a bad idea and also that the war on drugs is a form of institutional racism? (Hint: Those are my thoughts exactly).

Well I think the exact opposite (I believe in the 64 CRA but not in reformation of drug laws), so there's that. However, if one believes that racial inequality in terms of sheer effects by itself as grounds for changing federal law then I see absolutely no way why one would think the 64 CRA was inappropriate.

 

[cstu]

Why can't a person think that some parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were a bad idea and also that the war on drugs is a form of institutional racism? (Hint: Those are my thoughts exactly).

Get out of here with your common sense, Ivan.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

Obama did say that with regard to the Cambridge (beer summit) incident.

However RP is peaking on his drug leniency agenda, not the race issue.

that is a race issue

Not to Rand Paul it's not. This is the same guy who said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unnecessary and unconstitutional (IIRC).

Why can't a person think that some parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were a bad idea and also that the war on drugs is a form of institutional racism? (Hint: Those are my thoughts exactly).

Well I think the exact opposite (I believe in the 64 CRA but not in reformation of drug laws), so there's that. However, if one believes that racial inequality in terms of sheer effects by itself as grounds for changing federal law then I see absolutely no way why one would think the 64 CRA was inappropriate.

The parts of the CRA that Paul disagrees with are the parts where the federal government forces employers and other firms not to discriminate. And Paul disagrees with drug laws because they involve the government forcing people not to inhale the wrong kind of smoke. I think it's pretty obvious that Paul's overall decision rule isn't "racial justice," but it's perfectly consistent to think that a) the government shouldn't interfere with an individual's right to be a racist and b) the government should not itself institute racist policies.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It is a bit embarrassing that Paul has been more eloquent and more astute on this issue than the President. Of course, I recognize that if Obama had said,

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth,

he'd have been accused of race-baiting about 10 seconds later.

Obama did say that with regard to the Cambridge (beer summit) incident.

However RP is peaking on his drug leniency agenda, not the race issue.

that is a race issue

Not to Rand Paul it's not. This is the same guy who said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unnecessary and unconstitutional (IIRC).

Why can't a person think that some parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were a bad idea and also that the war on drugs is a form of institutional racism? (Hint: Those are my thoughts exactly).

Well I think the exact opposite (I believe in the 64 CRA but not in reformation of drug laws), so there's that. However, if one believes that racial inequality in terms of sheer effects by itself as grounds for changing federal law then I see absolutely no way why one would think the 64 CRA was inappropriate.

The parts of the CRA that Paul disagrees with are the parts where the federal government forces employers and other firms not to discriminate. And Paul disagrees with drug laws because they involve the government forcing people not to inhale the wrong kind of smoke. I think it's pretty obvious that Paul's overall decision rule isn't "racial justice," but it's perfectly consistent to think that a) the government shouldn't interfere with an individual's right to be a racist and b) the government should not itself institute racist policies.

I am not sure that is correct:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in "places of public accommodation," such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here's the transcript:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/howard-university-rand-paul-falsely-claims-he-didnt-oppose-civil-rights-actpaul-i-civil

I also disagree that the 64 CRA interferes with a person's right to be a racist (or believe or do whatever he likes with regard to other races, so long as it's not in the course of interstate commerce).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But Ivan when you say this:

I think it's pretty obvious that Paul's overall decision rule isn't "racial justice,"

I agree, it's not. That's my point.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But Ivan when you say this:

I think it's pretty obvious that Paul's overall decision rule isn't "racial justice,"

I agree, it's not. That's my point.

Okay, that's fair.

 

[Fennis]

But Ivan when you say this:

I think it's pretty obvious that Paul's overall decision rule isn't "racial justice,"

I agree, it's not. That's my point.

when he is talking about drug laws and how they are applied unequally that is a race issue. It is primarily a race issue.

With the possible exception of marijuana, Paul doesn't believe in legalizing drugs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But Ivan when you say this:

I think it's pretty obvious that Paul's overall decision rule isn't "racial justice,"

I agree, it's not. That's my point.

when he is talking about drug laws and how they are applied unequally that is a race issue. It is primarily a race issue.

With the possible exception of marijuana, Paul doesn't believe in legalizing drugs.

But he's for lessening sentences for drug convictions, right?

I don't think he's doing that because of racial inequity. I don't have a brain scan of his thought process, but that's how it looks to me. That's a classic libertarian stance too, racial justice or equality is not.

 

[cstu]

Discrimination at private businesses is something I'm torn on. It's a lot easier to be in favor of allowing now than it was in 1964 when an entire town would put up 'No Blacks Allowed' signs.

 

[Clifford]

I'd vote for Ted Cruz or Stalin before I voted for him. Not necessarily in that order.

Why split hairs?

 

[Clifford]

I'd vote for Ted Cruz or Stalin before I voted for him. Not necessarily in that order.

Why split hairs?

 

[Fennis]

But Ivan when you say this:

I think it's pretty obvious that Paul's overall decision rule isn't "racial justice,"

I agree, it's not. That's my point.

when he is talking about drug laws and how they are applied unequally that is a race issue. It is primarily a race issue.

With the possible exception of marijuana, Paul doesn't believe in legalizing drugs.

But he's for lessening sentences for drug convictions, right?

I don't think he's doing that because of racial inequity. I don't have a brain scan of his thought process, but that's how it looks to me. That's a classic libertarian stance too, racial justice or equality is not.

I think he wants to equalize how (drugs) laws are applied is so the government doesn't pick winners and losers. Today drug laws are applied in an unequal way, where people in poverty and especially poor, urban black people end up the losers.

He is picking these issues (inequality of drug laws, voting rights of felons, etc) of late to focus us, because they impact minorities. There are other '"libertarian" areas he could focus on, but he is choosing these issues. These are very unpopular issues with conservatives.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For the record, I disagree with Paul on felon disenfranchisement. Obviously that has a disparate impact on minorities, but society has a strong reason for not wanting felons to vote, so I'm fine with that in much the same way that I'm fine with not allowing felons to own guns even though I consider myself a second amendment supporter.

 

[whoknew]

For the record, I disagree with Paul on felon disenfranchisement. Obviously that has a disparate impact on minorities, but society has a strong reason for not wanting felons to vote, so I'm fine with that in much the same way that I'm fine with not allowing felons to own guns even though I consider myself a second amendment supporter.

What's that?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For the record, I disagree with Paul on felon disenfranchisement. Obviously that has a disparate impact on minorities, but society has a strong reason for not wanting felons to vote, so I'm fine with that in much the same way that I'm fine with not allowing felons to own guns even though I consider myself a second amendment supporter.

What's that?

If you can't follow the rules of civil society, you don't get to participate in making those rules.

 

[whoknew]

For the record, I disagree with Paul on felon disenfranchisement. Obviously that has a disparate impact on minorities, but society has a strong reason for not wanting felons to vote, so I'm fine with that in much the same way that I'm fine with not allowing felons to own guns even though I consider myself a second amendment supporter.

What's that?

If you can't follow the rules of civil society, you don't get to participate in making those rules.

Why? Maybe I don't follow them because they are stupid and should be changed. Should I not have a say in speed limit laws in Texas? Disenfranchising me because I disagree with a law made by the majority doesn't seem like an important government interest.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For the record, I disagree with Paul on felon disenfranchisement. Obviously that has a disparate impact on minorities, but society has a strong reason for not wanting felons to vote, so I'm fine with that in much the same way that I'm fine with not allowing felons to own guns even though I consider myself a second amendment supporter.

What's that?

If you can't follow the rules of civil society, you don't get to participate in making those rules.

Why? Maybe I don't follow them because they are stupid and should be changed. Should I not have a say in speed limit laws in Texas? Disenfranchising me because I disagree with a law made by the majority doesn't seem like an important government interest.

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.