Rand Paul Confronts the GOP's Race Problem

[theworldismine13]

You wouldn't need Jim Crow laws under a libertarian regime to give minorities second class treatment

Sent from handheld Minority Report console

I'm not here to defend libertarianism, I only defend them when my views overlap with theirs

 

[theworldismine13]

Good thing nobody in this thread is doing that

The current policy is that you measure black progress by measuring segregation, everybody does that

Dyce25 and a lot of people bemoan blacks "trapped" in the inner city, my question is what is wrong with blacks being concentrated in the inner city? Why is that a bad thing?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I'm not here to defend libertarianism, I only defend them when my views overlap with theirs

So you are here to defend libertarianism. When or why you do it is irrelevant. And in the post I responded to you said "libertarianism isn't that bad". How is that not defending it? You always mention things black people should consider to avoid voting Democrat, but always mention things black people should consider in favor of voting Republican. Well, racism still stings with many black people, and as great as libertarianism is economically, socially much of it is an extension of the Republican racism you continually deny. So I think that's something "black people should consider" before voting Republican. You claim people should do what they want, but dictate how black people should think. It doesn't work.

The current policy is that you measure black progress by measuring segregation, everybody does that

Dyce25 and a lot of people bemoan blacks "trapped" in the inner city, my question is what is wrong with blacks being concentrated in the inner city? Why is that a bad thing?

If thats what you think Dyce25 said your comprehension is lacking. In fact he clarified what he said... "segregation is not the main issue"... "some (but not all) blacks are trapped in the inner cities and pockets of the south"... how is that in any way equating black progress with segregation?

And black living in inner cities in which the police are openly told to violate their rights, RE developers + landlords continually push them out of apts, and economic conditions prevent them from buying + owning property is a bad thing. We need to put ourselves in positions to build wealth. Living in an inner city on a regular income while getting beat down financially by gentrification and high COL is not the way to do that. Jobs, education, networking, we don't need to be in the inner city to get any of that. You say what's wrong w/being in the inner city... what's right about it?

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Sadly, I anticipate another attempt at whitewashing (pun intended) the history and relationship between black America and modern neo-conservatism. Republicans have become adept at prattling on about republicanism being the "party of lincoln", in an effort to promote a soft con and avoid the demographic and political shifts in orientation that were spurred on by the civil rights movement. Until republicans LEGITIMATELY engage with conservatives foremost guiding principle: the wholesale acceptance of white supremacy/black inferiority as an explanation for inequality and outcomes, and how this feature of the ideology has controlled the incompatibility between minority voters and republicans, then this "conversation" is just more unproductive white noise.

Sigh....sometime you wish you weren't right:

On Wednesday morning, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) gave an address at the historically-black Howard University designed to convince black voters to support Republicans. While some of his remarks, most notably on harsh drug laws and other civil liberties issues, were well-received, the majority of the speech consisted in Paul condescendingly explaining American racial history to the audience, occasionally incorrectly, and expecting that it would open black voters’ eyes to the real Republican Party. Here are five moments that encapsulated the general problem with Paul’s speech:

1. The Civil Rights movement is actually the “history of the Republican Party”. The thrust of Paul’s speech was a recapitulation of the history of race and racism and a defense of the Republican record on race (representative line: “The story of emancipation, voting rights and citizenship, from Fredrick Douglass until the modern civil rights era, is in fact the history of the Republican Party.” The problem was that this speech, ostensibly designed to persuade black voters that the GOP was interested in them, was telling the audience things it already knew. Moreover, the speech didn’t grapple with what happened to make the Democrats the more racially liberal party in the mid-40s or the turn towards racially divisive politics on the Republican right, essentially skipping over the real reason the GOP alienated African-American voters.

Five Ways Rand Paul Whitesplained Politics At Howard University | ThinkProgress

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I dont know if its their guiding principle, but I def agree that in the context of the GOP and black people, the continued legacy of racist rhetoric and policy is an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed.

GOP is in an interesting bind of being the party that doesn't apologize or take any shyt. To acknowledge and apologize for decades of outright racist rhetoric and policy is prob outside their capabilities. But the only way they can regain control in these changing times is to abandon their old thinking and defeat the Dems in the area they claim to (economics). I think their slow reversal on gay marriage is a positive indicator, but it will take a lot of time and turnover.

 

[Dyce25]

The current policy is that you measure black progress by measuring segregation, everybody does that

Dyce25 and a lot of people bemoan blacks "trapped" in the inner city, my question is what is wrong with blacks being concentrated in the inner city? Why is that a bad thing?

I suggested a couple of reasons why that could possibly be a bad thing back on page 3. "...I would argue that non-integration is a very bad idea for minorities in this country. It would only serve to almost completely trounce any political power of minorities, and subsequently hurt their influence on American culture." These things themselves should be reason enough to categorize racial concentrations as a "bad thing". At least that's my opinion.

 

[theworldismine13]

So you are here to defend libertarianism. When or why you do it is irrelevant. And in the post I responded to you said "libertarianism isn't that bad". How is that not defending it? You always mention things black people should consider to avoid voting Democrat, but always mention things black people should consider in favor of voting Republican. Well, racism still stings with many black people, and as great as libertarianism is economically, socially much of it is an extension of the Republican racism you continually deny. So I think that's something "black people should consider" before voting Republican. You claim people should do what they want, but dictate how black people should think. It doesn't work.

im here to defend the concept that economic rights and individual rights is paramount

i said that IN FAIRNESS libertarianism does not allow jim crow laws so its not as bad as at sounds and i also said libertarianism is wrong in saying that its ok for a business to discriminate, so again i was simply defending the parts where we overlapped

black people should definitely consider racism as a factor in voting, i dont think there is anything wrong with that, what i was saying is that IMO there are other factors besides racism, so i wouldnt agree with a strategy of voting for the least racist person and making racism the major metric

and it is correct i was telling people HOW to think, in that multiple factors should be considered besides racism, that is the furthest i will go, im simply trying to create an intellectually open environment

but i was not telling people WHAT to think, if people consider all factors then they should vote however

If thats what you think Dyce25 said your comprehension is lacking. In fact he clarified what he said... "segregation is not the main issue"... "some (but not all) blacks are trapped in the inner cities and pockets of the south"... how is that in any way equating black progress with segregation?

i know what he said, and he said and you just quoted that blacks are "trapped" in the inner cities and pockets in the south, im just asking what is exactly is wrong with that? what is wrong with having a high concentration of blacks in one area?

in public policy, and in common talk, levels of segregation is used as a metric, unless you live under a rock you would see that

And black living in inner cities in which the police are openly told to violate their rights, RE developers + landlords continually push them out of apts, and economic conditions prevent them from buying + owning property is a bad thing. We need to put ourselves in positions to build wealth. Living in an inner city on a regular income while getting beat down financially by gentrification and high COL is not the way to do that. Jobs, education, networking, we don't need to be in the inner city to get any of that. You say what's wrong w/being in the inner city... what's right about it?

im aware of the issues in the inner city, my point is that those issues can be resolved by focusing on education and economic rights and individual rights, not by affirmative action, school desegregation, welfare, food stamps, public housing and section 8 and other typical solutions being pushed by black leaders and other people

the inner city and other black cities like detroit or gary indiana can be the engines of black economic growth and black power if we focus on education and rights, so IMO there is nothing wrong with having a high concentration of blacks in the inner city or pockets in the south, those represent growth opportunities for black people

like i was saying in the other thread we need more Milton Friedman and less Karl Marx

 

[theworldismine13]

I suggested a couple of reasons why that could possibly be a bad thing back on page 3. "...I would argue that non-integration is a very bad idea for minorities in this country. It would only serve to almost completely trounce any political power of minorities, and subsequently hurt their influence on American culture." These things themselves should be reason enough to categorize racial concentrations as a "bad thing". At least that's my opinion.

i dont see how racial concentrations would hurt minority power, it would actually increase minority power both economic and political

it only hurts minorities if in conjunction with segregation the government is also violating the economic and individual rights of minorities

in other words we do not need to fight against segregation, we need to fight for economic and individual rights

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

im here to defend the concept that economic rights and individual rights is paramount

i said that IN FAIRNESS libertarianism does not allow jim crow laws so its not as bad as at sounds and i also said libertarianism is wrong in saying that its ok for a business to discriminate, so again i was simply defending the parts where we overlapped

black people should definitely consider racism as a factor in voting, i dont think there is anything wrong with that, what i was saying is that IMO there are other factors besides racism, so i wouldnt agree with a strategy of voting for the least racist person and making racism the major metric

Again, who here suggested that be the way people should approach voting? You claim black people should consider racism when voting, but how you want them to, which means voting Republican. You have shown this numerous times in your dismissal of Republican racism and exaggeration or even outright lying about Democratic racism.

and it is correct i was telling people HOW to think, in that multiple factors should be considered besides racism, that is the furthest i will go, im simply trying to create an intellectually open environment

but i was not telling people WHAT to think, if people consider all factors then they should vote however

What's the difference? You can't claim to be about intellectual freedom and then dictate what OR "how" people should think, in your subjective opinion. If you feel black people should be doing certain things thats fine. I do, I am sure everyone else here does. But if so you have to give up this idea that you are about "freedom". Freedom is not telling people what to do.

i know what he said, and he said and you just quoted that blacks are "trapped" in the inner cities and pockets in the south, im just asking what is exactly is wrong with that? what is wrong with having a high concentration of blacks in one area?

Having a high concentration of blacks is not the issue. It is the economic paralysis and civil rights issues that comes with living in many inner cities. The issues black people face in inner cities are relevant to everyone below certain socioeconomic thresholds; it has nothing to do with race.

in public policy, and in common talk, levels of segregation is used as a metric, unless you live under a rock you would see that

Already its changed from being the only metric, to one of many metrics. Won't be long before you are denying it being a metric at all.

im aware of the issues in the inner city, my point is that those issues can be resolved by focusing on education and economic rights and individual rights, not by affirmative action, school desegregation, welfare, food stamps, public housing and section 8 and other typical solutions being pushed by black leaders and other people

So now school segregation is a good thing? You are all over the place

the inner city and other black cities like detroit or gary indiana can be the engines of black economic growth and black power if we focus on education and rights, so IMO there is nothing wrong with having a high concentration of blacks in the inner city or pockets in the south, those represent growth opportunities for black people

Detroit, Gary, etc can't come back. These cities are economically dead for white people. How can they be powerhouses for us? There is no economic activity in these places; they are hollow shells of the cities they used to be, and were heavily dependent on single segments. A far cry from somewhere like NYC, which is the flagship city for countless sectors.

Atlanta is a black powerhouse, due to its combo of diverse + high economic activity, and... wait for it.... low cost of living. Detroit, black people can afford homes, but have no jobs. NYC, black people can get jobs, but are pretty much doomed to live in poverty, even with an education + decent paying gig. Atlanta has both the jobs AND the environment to build wealth. So this idea that black people just need to pull up their bootstraps and work harder to thrive in economically dead or imbalanced cities is ridiculous. We need to build wealth, and that is pretty much impossible in an in inner city, no matter how hard you try.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

we need to fight for economic and individual rights

What are these rights specifically that we don't currently have?

 

[The Real]

I dont know if its their guiding principle, but I def agree that in the context of the GOP and black people, the continued legacy of racist rhetoric and policy is an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed.

GOP is in an interesting bind of being the party that doesn't apologize or take any shyt. To acknowledge and apologize for decades of outright racist rhetoric and policy is prob outside their capabilities. But the only way they can regain control in these changing times is to abandon their old thinking and defeat the Dems in the area they claim to (economics). I think their slow reversal on gay marriage is a positive indicator, but it will take a lot of time and turnover.

I'm much more pessimistic than you are here, because the thing with gay marriage is that its public face is upper-middle class and wealthy white men who happen to be gay, but in every other way have no major incompatibility with any GOP ideas. Black people are seen as both more monolithic and much more toxic (there's no Black equivalent of the rich white gay man, and Black people on the whole are seen as having noting to contribute to a candidate or party besides a few votes) so it's not just a matter of erasing a certain amount of social conservatism or what have you to start courting Black votes. The other thing is that the GOP never made homophobia a key part of its strategy at any point in time, even though it deployed it on smaller levels for secondary purposes, like distraction, since the early 2000s when gays started becoming more mainstream, whereas racial division/tension has been absolutely central to the GOP for the last half-century at least. It's shaped entire voting blocs, political districts, and presidential races.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I'm much more pessimistic than you are here, because the thing with gay marriage is that its public face is upper-middle class and wealthy white men who happen to be gay, but in every other way have no major incompatibility with any GOP ideas. Black people are seen as both more monolithic and much more toxic (there's no Black equivalent of the rich white gay man, and Black people on the whole are seen as having noting to contribute to a candidate or party besides a few votes) so it's not just a matter of erasing a certain amount of social conservatism or what have you to start courting Black votes. The other thing is that the GOP never made homophobia a key part of its strategy at any point in time, even though it deployed it on smaller levels for secondary purposes, like distraction, since the early 2000s when gays started becoming more mainstream, whereas racial division/tension has been absolutely central to the GOP for the last half-century at least. It's shaped entire voting blocs, political districts, and presidential races.

I mean at the end of the day its all politics. I don't think the Dems are genuine in many, if any, of their intentions either. Twimmy is generally wrong but he was kind of right in that we should be putting political parties against each other to our benefit. Where he is wrong is in thinking that we need to earn the party's loyalty w/votes, rather let the party know they need to come clean on the dirt they did and EARN our votes. So even if it is just a matter of adjusting to new demographics, its fine. Americans are generally stupid and we elect stupid officials; I dont expect a 60 something year old white man to change his world view over night when bigotry and racism have worked so well up to this point. But if he is willing to fake tolerance to my advantage for political gain, hey, it is what it is. We dont need these people to like us, just represent our interests, like they are paid to do.

Its like that Clipse song "Dirty Money"....

"You could tell me 'bout ya day, I pretend I listen
And you ain't gotta love me, just be convincing"

Changing culture and thinking is damn near impossible... this kind of clenched teeth compromise is about the best we can hope for in these times.

 

[Dyce25]

i dont see how racial concentrations would hurt minority power, it would actually increase minority power both economic and political

it only hurts minorities if in conjunction with segregation the government is also violating the economic and individual rights of minorities

in other words we do not need to fight against segregation, we need to fight for economic and individual rights

I've already mentioned previously that segregation would only result in more racism and hatred from all racial groups. By closing yourself off from the rest of America, you're validating racists that say our differences of culture cannot be overcome ("They're just too different," as racists usually claim). Thus, in the end, it's my opinion that economic and individual rights would be infringed by the government just through public opinion once the racial tension and hatred is ratcheted up. That would do nothing but do even MORE to isolate majority black populated communities around the nation.

 

[Dyce25]

im here to defend the concept that economic rights and individual rights is paramount

i said that IN FAIRNESS libertarianism does not allow jim crow laws so its not as bad as at sounds and i also said libertarianism is wrong in saying that its ok for a business to discriminate, so again i was simply defending the parts where we overlapped

black people should definitely consider racism as a factor in voting, i dont think there is anything wrong with that, what i was saying is that IMO there are other factors besides racism, so i wouldnt agree with a strategy of voting for the least racist person and making racism the major metric

and it is correct i was telling people HOW to think, in that multiple factors should be considered besides racism, that is the furthest i will go, im simply trying to create an intellectually open environment

but i was not telling people WHAT to think, if people consider all factors then they should vote however



i know what he said, and he said and you just quoted that blacks are "trapped" in the inner cities and pockets in the south, im just asking what is exactly is wrong with that? what is wrong with having a high concentration of blacks in one area?

in public policy, and in common talk, levels of segregation is used as a metric, unless you live under a rock you would see that



im aware of the issues in the inner city, my point is that those issues can be resolved by focusing on education and economic rights and individual rights, not by affirmative action, school desegregation, welfare, food stamps, public housing and section 8 and other typical solutions being pushed by black leaders and other people

the inner city and other black cities like detroit or gary indiana can be the engines of black economic growth and black power if we focus on education and rights, so IMO there is nothing wrong with having a high concentration of blacks in the inner city or pockets in the south, those represent growth opportunities for black people

like i was saying in the other thread we need more Milton Friedman and less Karl Marx

I'm really about to start having to question your comprehension if you keep insisting that I said all blacks are "trapped" in the inner-cities and isolated pockets of the South. Reread the quote, or my own original post, and you'll see a clear distinction between the two phrases. I never even said majority of black people were in those areas. I used terms like "a good amount" or some. I'm not trying to be an a$$hole at all, but I really hate being forced into defending positions I never took. I hate being misrepresented in my thoughts, ideas, and writings. We can have a discussion about this issue, but please stick to the facts of the conversation. I hate having to clarify myself over and over and will, at some point, conclude that you are either purposely misrepresenting my views to your gain or you lack the comprehension to understand them. In either case, I will understand that there's no purpose in debating the topic with you, and I'll politely move on.

 

[theworldismine13]

Again, who here suggested that be the way people should approach voting? You claim black people should consider racism when voting, but how you want them to, which means voting Republican. You have shown this numerous times in your dismissal of Republican racism and exaggeration or even outright lying about Democratic racism.

wow at this, you and others suggested that people should approach it that way, i said in other threads that racism is just one factor and that racism shouldn't preclude voting for somebody and i was called all kinds of names and my character was besmirched

i have never told anybody how they should vote, i simply noted that racism is just a data point, and it takes more data points to reach a proper conclusion and i was saying this to defend tim scott and carson......thats all ive ever said

i have always been for intellectual freedom

What's the difference? You can't claim to be about intellectual freedom and then dictate what OR "how" people should think, in your subjective opinion. If you feel black people should be doing certain things thats fine. I do, I am sure everyone else here does. But if so you have to give up this idea that you are about "freedom". Freedom is not telling people what to do.

the difference is that i allow for people to reach different conclusions and i respect whatever conclusion they come to

Having a high concentration of blacks is not the issue. It is the economic paralysis and civil rights issues that comes with living in many inner cities. The issues black people face in inner cities are relevant to everyone below certain socioeconomic thresholds; it has nothing to do with race.

lol i was the one that said high concentration of blacks is not the real issue and the real issue is rights, im glad we agree

and if it has nothing to do with race then what is the point of using segregation as a metric?

im glad we agree

Already its changed from being the only metric, to one of many metrics. Won't be long before you are denying it being a metric at all.

what? i was saying that segregation shouldnt be used as a metric, i think you are confused

So now school segregation is a good thing? You are all over the place

breh, are you even listening to what i am saying, im saying segregation should not be used as a metric, in other words why do we want to desegregate schools, why is that a goal?

desegregation shouldn't be a goal, im not going all over the place im saying the same thing

Detroit, Gary, etc can't come back. These cities are economically dead for white people. How can they be powerhouses for us? There is no economic activity in these places; they are hollow shells of the cities they used to be, and were heavily dependent on single segments. A far cry from somewhere like NYC, which is the flagship city for countless sectors.

Atlanta is a black powerhouse, due to its combo of diverse + high economic activity, and... wait for it.... low cost of living. Detroit, black people can afford homes, but have no jobs. NYC, black people can get jobs, but are pretty much doomed to live in poverty, even with an education + decent paying gig. Atlanta has both the jobs AND the environment to build wealth. So this idea that black people just need to pull up their bootstraps and work harder to thrive in economically dead or imbalanced cities is ridiculous. We need to build wealth, and that is pretty much impossible in an in inner city, no matter how hard you try.

Detroit, Gary, etc can't come back. These cities are economically dead for white people. How can they be powerhouses for us? There is no economic activity in these places; they are hollow shells of the cities they used to be, and were heavily dependent on single segments. A far cry from somewhere like NYC, which is the flagship city for countless sectors.

these cities are dead because of the low education level of the population, the key to bringing them back is to change black culture to focus on education and to expand economic and individual freedom and instead of basing policies on spreading wealth, we need to be guided by policies about how to create wealth

Atlanta is a black powerhouse, due to its combo of diverse + high economic activity, and... wait for it.... low cost of living. Detroit, black people can afford homes, but have no jobs. NYC, black people can get jobs, but are pretty much doomed to live in poverty, even with an education + decent paying gig. Atlanta has both the jobs AND the environment to build wealth. So this idea that black people just need to pull up their bootstraps and work harder to thrive in economically dead or imbalanced cities is ridiculous. We need to build wealth, and that is pretty much impossible in an in inner city, no matter how hard you try.

if you cant afford to live in NYC then you should move, section 8 and public housing is not the solution, government housing policies have distorted the market by putting people to live where they cant afford to live

cities are dead because of lack of education and imbalanced cities exist because of government interfering in the market