Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: EXCLUSIVE: Rand Paul sounds off to Salon on race, 2016, Hillary and Republicans

  1. #1

    EXCLUSIVE: Rand Paul sounds off to Salon on race, 2016, Hillary and Republicans

    With an eye on a potential 2016 bid for the White House, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul continues to test whether his libertarian-leaning message can attract new voters to the Republican Party. His appearance on liberal commentator Bill Maher’s HBO talk show last Friday (along with this interview) helped fuel the notion that unlike most other key figures from either major party, Paul is willing to talk with audiences who may not be disposed to agree with him.

    Of course, there are plenty who scoff at the idea of a Tea Party icon being the face of a sweeping coalition. Skepticism has been especially fierce — including at this site — when Paul has attempted to reach out to African-American voters, with critics noting Paul’s disapproval (as a Senate candidate four years ago) of a key provision of the 1964 Civil Right Act barring discrimination among private business.

    On the other hand, for a younger generation of voters feeling ignored by Democrats, Paul’s present-day position on U.S. drug laws and criminal justice reforms have appeal:

    http://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/excl...d_republicans/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Setting the Record Straight

    When it comes to race, how do you explain to potential new supporters some past controversies – like your comments on the Civil Rights Act and a former aide’s neo-Confederate past — that you know Democrats and others will bring up should you seek the White House?

    Well, I think that I simply point to my record. I don’t think there has been anybody who has been a bigger defender of minority rights in the Congress than myself, and that’s not saying others aren’t trying as well. But I think you can see a history and a litany of bills that I’ve put forward to not only restore voting rights, but to try to prevent people from the tragedy of losing their employability through felony convictions and other things.

    People will always do things for partisan purposes, and I think some of that drummed up in the beginning for partisan purposes when I was running for office. But no, I don’t think there’s anything out there that people are going to say, “Oh, look at this, this means that you’re a racist,” or something, and I think if they do, they probably pigeonhole themselves as being unreasonable by making that kind of comment.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by NACBA View Post
    When it comes to race, how do you explain to potential new supporters some past controversies – like your comments on the Civil Rights Act and a former aide’s neo-Confederate past — that you know Democrats and others will bring up should you seek the White House?
    It's come up two different times with two different people and it's specifically this. I attempted to explained private property rights to the best of my ability and explained Rand's position is NOT opposing the entire legislation. His position is stressing he thinks it's wrong GOVERMENT is forcing private business owners to work with who they prefer not too. During the time of the discussion for Rand was about the Civil Rights 1964 Act but this same thing can be applied today to those wishing to be married as homosexuals and church officials are choosing not too. Or earlier this year or late last year I remember hearing homosexual couples suing business owners for "discrimination" due to the owners refusing to have their cakes made.

    Some see money for money, some see who they get their money from as part of the money. Any who allows GAY MARRIAGE to affect their lives is living with their heads in the sand. Even though the courts and all that are doing it one way, even if it was through legislation, if you're not gay, you're not going to get a gay marriage correct? Free country concept is still accepted so if you don't want to go or participate or assist in it taking place you don't have to.

    People get private property rights but until I clarified it most took Paul's position out of context just like MSNBC wanted. Everyone in this forum knows it's not easy to distinguish or even begin the discussion that half a centuries worth of excessive govt. intervention is not in the individuals favor. But for the most part I'll say that I think Rand will just have to clarify that GOVERNMENT has no jurisdiction telling a private business owner who to choose to deal with. People act like govt. is the only entity that can do things that WE as humans can easily do. If the local cake shop refused to serve gays before I'd ask for government assistance I would personally attempt to suck their revenue streams dry by telling everyone.

    Maybe I'm just being a naive young kid again
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Amash (R) MI-3rd
    "Young people want a Republican Party that believes in limited government and economic freedom and individual liberty, but they want a party that also acts on it.”

    THE FUTURE OF THE GOP = R[∃vo˩]ution 2.0: Rand Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by NOVALibertarian View Post
    First they ignore you= Ron Paul, 2007-2008
    Then they laugh at you= Ron Paul, 2012
    Then they fight you= Rand Paul, 2014-2015
    And then you win= Rand Paul, November 8th, 2016

  5. #4
    If you believe in the freedom of association, you believe in the freedom of disassocation.
    Like forcing a baker to cook a cake for a gay couple. It is his freaking cake shop. He will suffer the financial pitfalls or rewards of such a decision.
    But either way, no one has the right to force people to associate.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  6. #5
    Please just quote the entire piece and break the link so we don't have to clink on junk sites like Salon, Huffpo, and ThinkProgress to get Rand news.
    How to plug a TWEET in post [ TWEET] [/TWEET ]

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by philipped View Post
    It's come up two different times with two different people and it's specifically this. I attempted to explained private property rights to the best of my ability and explained Rand's position is NOT opposing the entire legislation. His position is stressing he thinks it's wrong GOVERMENT is forcing private business owners to work with who they prefer not too. During the time of the discussion for Rand was about the Civil Rights 1964 Act but this same thing can be applied today to those wishing to be married as homosexuals and church officials are choosing not too. Or earlier this year or late last year I remember hearing homosexual couples suing business owners for "discrimination" due to the owners refusing to have their cakes made.

    Some see money for money, some see who they get their money from as part of the money. Any who allows GAY MARRIAGE to affect their lives is living with their heads in the sand. Even though the courts and all that are doing it one way, even if it was through legislation, if you're not gay, you're not going to get a gay marriage correct? Free country concept is still accepted so if you don't want to go or participate or assist in it taking place you don't have to.

    People get private property rights but until I clarified it most took Paul's position out of context just like MSNBC wanted. Everyone in this forum knows it's not easy to distinguish or even begin the discussion that half a centuries worth of excessive govt. intervention is not in the individuals favor. But for the most part I'll say that I think Rand will just have to clarify that GOVERNMENT has no jurisdiction telling a private business owner who to choose to deal with. People act like govt. is the only entity that can do things that WE as humans can easily do. If the local cake shop refused to serve gays before I'd ask for government assistance I would personally attempt to suck their revenue streams dry by telling everyone.

    Maybe I'm just being a naive young kid again
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    If you believe in the freedom of association, you believe in the freedom of disassocation.
    Like forcing a baker to cook a cake for a gay couple. It is his freaking cake shop. He will suffer the financial pitfalls or rewards of such a decision.
    But either way, no one has the right to force people to associate.
    And ^that is how you actually explain Rand Paul's position on the CRA. Don't play the stupid Stossel game about blacks being forced to serve klansman. Talk about religious people being forced forced to participate, in some form or fashion, in gay weddings. Despite Obama's best efforts, blacks, as a group, are less supportive of gay marriage than whites. And even those who support gay marriage are more likely to be supportive of those who don't and don't want to participate. The CRA currently doesn't support sexual preference but I expect that to change eventually either legislatively or by the courts eventually deciding that sexual preference = gender or sexual preference = ethnicity. That said, Rand Paul never said he'd vote against the CRA even in part.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    Please just quote the entire piece and break the link so we don't have to clink on junk sites like Salon, Huffpo, and ThinkProgress to get Rand news.
    This.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-16-2015, 12:07 PM
  2. Replies: 74
    Last Post: 07-10-2014, 11:10 PM
  3. Salon: Republicans rally around Rand
    By jct74 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2013, 10:47 AM
  4. Salon: Rand Paul as Dumb as He Sounds?
    By AuH20 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 09:44 AM
  5. Rand Paul [Senate Race Exclusive 1st Results]
    By Reason in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-19-2009, 10:09 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •