Rand Paul Confronts the GOP's Race Problem

[Spatial Paradox]

These places don't need legal protection to segregate. Many of them already do. So to a degree I see dude's point. I mean why would you want to patronize the business of a racist anyway?

Though I do see how it could be an issue for basic shyt like groceries, gas, etc. Imagine being low on gas and pulling up to a "whites only" gas station in the middle of nowhere. And I wouldn't want the govt getting lobbied to decide what are and aren't 'essential services'. So the laws make sense.

If the society you live in discriminates against a given group in every way imaginable, why wouldn't you? If you're a customer in such a society, you're likely racist yourself to some extent, so you wouldn't care about excluding certain groups from your favorite place of business. You'd likely welcome it. If by chance you aren't racist, how likely are you to inconvenience yourself to adhere to your morals? Your friends/family/neighbors/etc. likely won't think any more highly of you. If anything, you risk being ostracized for wanting to associate with the "other".

If you're a business owner, if the customers to be gained by barring that group from your business outweighs the potential customers from that same group, then, in a perverse way, it makes perfect business sense to do so.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

If the society you live in discriminates against a given group in every way imaginable, why wouldn't you? If you're a customer in such a society, you're likely racist yourself to some extent, so you wouldn't care about excluding certain groups from your favorite place of business. You'd likely welcome it. If by chance you aren't racist, how likely are you to inconvenience yourself to adhere to your morals? Your friends/family/neighbors/etc. likely won't think any more highly of you. If anything, you risk being ostracized for wanting to associate with the "other".

If you're a business owner, if the customers to be gained by barring that group from your business outweighs the potential customers from that same group, then, in a perverse way, it makes perfect business sense to do so.

Maybe I am naive but I don't think there are too many places like this in US today. ESPECIALLY in today's economy.

 

[Fillerguy]

If memory serves Rand Paul's point on the feds not being able to force a oprivate business to not be racially discriminatory was based on the Libertarian/Old School Conservative philosophy that once the populace discovered that a certain business was racist then people would stop frequenting said establishment and the place would either go out of business or the business owner would have to change his practices.
It is a bit of a pie in the sky, "the marketplace solves all problems" thought process but I don't think he meant it in any malicious, racist way.

And I am very interested to see what angle he tries to work in his speech at Howard because the if the GOP is to survive going forward they really do have to begin doing some outreach to voting sectors that have not been historically inclined to vote for them.

Than he's just incredibly naive which is fukking worse.

 

[KingpinOG]

Whether he's "racist" in his heart or not doesn't matter nearly as much to me as to whether or not he advocates policies that reinforce structural racism. Pushing for racist policy because you're tone deaf or apathetic is no better than pushing for racist policy out of hatred.

But Rand Paul isn't advocating for policies that reinforce structural racism. Paul isn't opposed to the Civil Rights act or trying to get it repealed.......he has said numerous times it is a non-issue. Liberals took an obscure theoretical discussion Paul had with a newspaper and used it to distract from the important issues that people are actually concerned about.

Why discuss the failure of Democrats policies regarding economic growth, job creation, health care, etc when you get get uneducated, low information rubes to think that Republicans are trying to re-segregate lunch counters?

 

[No_bammer_weed]

But Rand Paul isn't advocating for policies that reinforce structural racism. Paul isn't opposed to the Civil Rights act or trying to get it repealed.......he has said numerous times it is a non-issue. Liberals took an obscure theoretical discussion Paul had with a newspaper and used it to distract from the important issues that people are actually concerned about.

Why discuss the failure of Democrats policies regarding economic growth, job creation, health care, etc when you get get uneducated, low information rubes to think that Republicans are trying to re-segregate lunch counters?

To people like you and rand paul, its simply "a theoretical discussion", for the people who have been affected by said legislation, and its political and social mutations for centuries its a matter of life or death. But hey, why split hairs!

 

[KingpinOG]

Threads like this are why people laugh at the stupidity of you left wingers.

So while you hyperventilate over the non-existant possibility of private businesses being allowed to discriminate against blacks, you ignore Rand Paul's ACTUAL POLICIES that would greatly benefit black people, like the decriminalization of non-violent drug use.

Continue to wallow in your own ignorance. Idiots.

 

[Dyce25]

Not that I agree with the practice, but how does a business that doesn't serve certain races gain or exercise a privilege over others? Seems like they are putting themselves at a huge disadvantage.

And the only way the GOP can gain legitimacy with all the groups they have alienated is to acknowledge their wrongdoing and separate themselves from the racist loudmouths. GOP as a fiscally conservative socially disinterested party would appeal to a lot of people.

Blacks account for about 13-14% of the nation (whites, 70%), and as already stated, there's still a type of segregation going on today in many places. This is a two part situation: People in some places subconsciously segregate themselves from each other, BUT back in the day government forced blacks into large communities - segregated from whites (by only allowing homes/rent in certain places). Unfortunately, this had the results we see today of a good amount of blacks being trapped in the inner-cities and forgotten, isolated areas of the black communities in the South. If Paul's suggestion were followed, I honestly feel we'd be even more segregated than we currently are because white business owners would hedge their bets on allowing just whites (since they're 70%), forcing more minority business owners to focus primarily on their own racial communities since they're likely to be under-served. Obviously, this would result in even more "pockets" of minority communities within the nation-encompassing white population. I'd rather we stay the way we are now and follow the path to progress instead of regress.

 

[Dyce25]

Threads like this are why people laugh at the stupidity of you left wingers.

So while you hyperventilate over the non-existant possibility of Rand Paul allowing private businesses to discriminate against blacks, you ignore his ACTUAL POLICIES that would greatly benefit the black people, like the decriminalization of non-violent drug use.

Continue to wallow in your own ignorance. Idiots.

Um... Majority of people on the Left are for decriminalization of non-violent drug use. I can't speak for all, but the ones I know are, in fact, passionate about that issue and speak about it often. How does talking about this idiotic issue with Paul (which is fun for Liberals to talk about because his view is so fukking stupid) negate someone from honestly opposing the "War on Drugs?"

 

[theworldismine13]

Blacks account for about 13-14% of the nation (whites, 70%), and as already stated, there's still a type of segregation going on today in many places. This is a two part situation: People in some places subconsciously segregate themselves from each other, BUT back in the day government forced blacks into large communities - segregated from whites (by only allowing homes/rent in certain places). Unfortunately, this had the results we see today of a good amount of blacks being trapped in the inner-cities and forgotten, isolated areas of the black communities in the South. If Paul's suggestion were followed, I honestly feel we'd be even more segregated than we currently are because white business owners would hedge their bets on allowing just whites (since they're 70%), forcing more minority business owners to focus primarily on their own racial communities since they're likely to be under-served. Obviously, this would result in even more "pockets" of minority communities within the nation-encompassing white population. I'd rather we stay the way we are now and follow the path to progress instead of regress.

for the record i dont agree that the government should not enforce civil rigths laws on business but i think its important to clarify that segregation is not the problem per se, the issue is economic rights and individual rights

black people are not trapped in the inner city, black people are are trapped in government housing, welfare programs and awful public education

the government doesn't have the right to tell anybody where they should live in the first place, unless you live in public housing or are in some government program, we have to fight for a economic rights and individual rights, that is the metric, segregation is not the metric to measure black well being, segregation is whatever

 

[theworldismine13]

Um... Majority of people on the Left are for decriminalization of non-violent drug use. I can't speak for all, but the ones I know are, in fact, passionate about that issue and speak about it often. How does talking about this idiotic issue with Paul (which is fun for Liberals to talk about because his view is so fukking stupid) negate someone from honestly opposing the "War on Drugs?"

biden and clinton have been behind the biggest legislation related to the war on drugs, and while "the people" on the left may be for decriminalization, there are very few politicians of any stripe that are publicly for decriminalization

 

[Spatial Paradox]

Maybe I am naive but I don't think there are too many places like this in US today. ESPECIALLY in today's economy.

Perhaps not so much today, but historically, that was the case.

 

[Dyce25]

for the record i dont agree that the government should not enforce civil rigths laws on business but i think its important to clarify that segregation is not the problem per se, the issue is economic rights and individual rights

black people are not trapped in the inner city, black people are are trapped in government housing, welfare programs and awful public education

the government doesn't have the right to tell anybody where they should live in the first place, unless you live in public housing or are in some government program, we have to fight for a economic rights and individual rights, that is the metric, segregation is not the metric to measure black well being, segregation is whatever

I never said that segregation was the actual issue at hand. It's an accelerator of racial tension and hatred, which ultimately leads to restricted economic and individual rights in the long-term (that doesn't deflect attention, nor am I saying that segregation is the only cause). I didn't say that black people were trapped exclusively in inner-cities, either. I said that a good amount of blacks are trapped in the inner-cities and in the segregated pockets of the South. Outside of that, there are, of course, black people that live among white populations. That doesn't negate a thing I've said, though. Also, no the government doesn't have the right to tell anyone where to live. However, they did have this power at one time, whether they had the right or not. The truth is that the American government took the influx of blacks from the South migrating to the North and directed them to certain areas of the cities. This has an effect that can be seen today if one chooses to look. Of course, through time some people have branched out from these communities, but unfortunately, it's far fewer than should have in an ideal world.

 

[Dyce25]

biden and clinton have been behind the biggest legislation related to the war on drugs, and while "the people" on the left may be for decriminalization, there are very few politicians of any stripe that are publicly for decriminalization

Where does this fit into the conversation between me and that dude? He didn't accuse Biden, Clinton, Obama, Bush, or any politician of speaking out about Paul's views while not caring about the "War on Drugs." He accused the Left of doing that, which encompasses "the people" of the Left. More directly, he was talking about the people on the Left in this thread, as he was supposedly laughing at our "ignorance." Truth is, as I stated, most people on the Left are against the "War on Drugs," as are most of the Left-leaning people on this forum, much less in this thread. Try again.

 

[88m3]

I hope the old man dies during an autoerotic session, and his son dies in a fire.


This is the tolerance of the Left!

 

[Dyce25]

I hope the old man dies during an autoerotic session, and his son dies in a fire.


This is the tolerance fo the Left!

I assume you meant, "This is the tolerance OF the Left!" Still, no one in this thread has said anything about wishing death on anyone, much less those two specifically. I'm pretty sure no one even mentioned physically harming them.