U.S Election 2016

Post Reply New Topic

I wouldn't rule out the Maddow interview causing little Paul trouble, as most of the all important independent voters would be just as appalled as liberals.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The only people that are appalled are disingenuous nutjobs like Rachel Maddow and her ignorant unquestioning followers. Its an interesting debate on the role of government amongst rational honest individuals and unfortunately Maddow isn't one of those. Even Chris Matthews called her out on her attempted little smear at the time. She was on that ridiculous Aqua Buddah bandwagon too. It wasn't a relevant issue in 2010, its not in 2012, and it won't be in 2016.

I'd hardly call Rachel Maddow a disingenuous nutjob, and I think Rand Paul's notion that private businesses have the right to refuse service to customers due to race is a legitimate concern for voters. I actually had watched that interview, and I saw what I considered to be a legitimate line of questioning on Maddow's part, with no attempt to smear Paul - despite what he claimed afterward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Discrimination on the basis of race is a moral wrong and I find it as abhorrent as anyone can. Not only is it immoral, it's stupid and makes zero economic sense. I would never frequent a business that conducted itself that way and I feel most people of my generation would feel the same, some wouldn't but I'd rather they remove themselves from our society anyways As Barry Goldwater said "you can't legislate morality". It would certainly be interesting to hear Maddow argue in favor of government regulation of morality given who she is, I doubt she does believe that if you phrased it that way. A noble end doesn't justify the means to achieve it. That is my opinion on the matter.

We're about 50 years removed from the relevancy of the debate over these certain provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Maddow's probing questioning wasn't meant to stimulate debate over the role of government or to gain insight into a relevant issue, it was done as an attack with the intention to misrepresent his views and to fuel her(and pretty much the rest of the MSM) favorite past time of never ending race baiting.

I fear thinking about 2016. Neither party has any real leaders which means we will once again have to choose between Dud1 and Dud2. I pray for an independent third party, maybe even in 2014.

2016:

We will be deeper in debt regardless of who wins.

Our economy will probably be sh***y regardless of who wins.

Our civil rights will be further eroded regardless of who wins.

The full extent of the unpleasantness of Obamacare will be revealed. (My friend's doc is already getting hit hard with the new tax on medical supplies)

Hillary Clinton will fight it out with Joe Biden

If the Republicans have any damn sense left (and that's a big if) they will run someone like Marco Rubio or Chris Christie or Jan Brewer.

Unions will continue to chase jobs overseas

Democrats will continue to blindly support their party

Republicans will continue to invade the vagina and fixate on gays.

People will care more about DWTS than politics.

Libertarians will continue to gain ground but not national office.

Let's just pray the country doesn't collapse and become some oppressive authoritarian or communist regene.

If the Religious Right ever takes over, we may have both!

The question was over how Rand Paul would have opposed the provision in the Civil Rights act forcing private business to drop racial discrimination during the 60's. Paul from the onset claimed he would have opposed that aspect of the law - and at that time, plenty of people north and south would have continued to frequent such businesses. The fact of the matter is, civil rights would never have gotten off the ground had social equality in the private sector had not been enforced. Racial equality is more than the right to vote - it's the simple right to eat at the same lunch counter as someone of a different color. As for legislating morality; it turns out it actually worked out pretty well, because giving black Americans the same right to go into any private business and be served did more for changing the opinions of whites than even the right to participate in government possibly had. And that is the reason why Rachel Maddow grilled Paul so furiously over this issue.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I really hope Gary Johnson gets 5% of the national vote tomorrow. If he does, expect the two party system to be broken up in 4 years.

Do you as an individual person have a right to refuse friendship or association with another person because of race, religion or sexual orientation? If you have such a right, then why not a PRIVATE firm built with PRIVATE capital have such a right since the PRIVATE owners do.

A PRIVATE business firm is NOT a creature of the government. The government is required by law to be neutral on matters such as race, religion or sexual orientation. This requirement does not extend to you or me.

If we are open minded in our associations that is our PRIVATE decision.

Do you really and truly comprehend what PRIVATE means.

ruveyn

As a matter of fact, very often segregation in privately owned businesses was the result of Jim Crow laws.
And even when it was the owner of the business just being a bigoted dick, the fact remains, making him accept all customers equally was for the public good. Giving the vote to blacks and other minorities creates equality in the electorate, but that means nothing without social equality. And you simply can't have social equality without the small things, like being able to eat at the same lunch counter, or take a s**t in the same restroom. And without a doubt, that is for the public good. Otherwise, a business owner could argue against government enforced health codes, perhaps claiming: "I have the right to serve rat feces in my customer's food."

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The "public good" is subjective. According to the religious right, gay marriage is not in the public's best interest. According to the liberal left, individuals having firearms is not in the public's best interest.

Since the ideology behind America is about liberty for all citizens, then granting black Americans full rights in public and private spheres IS is more than just subjective. Same with rights for gay Americans. And the notion that liberals want to disarm all Americans exists only in the imaginations of the right. They only want some sanity in who qualifies as a legal gun owner.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Considering the Religious Right actually has a lot of differences in opinion on various issues, the odds of an authoritarian regime stemming from the Religious Right is rather low, not to mention these are the same people that often want Government to stay out of people's lives.

Well, except on matters of pregnancy - and not just abortion, but also questioning the simple right for my wife to use birth control. Then there's the matter of not only denying gay Americans the right to marry, but also criminalizing gay sex in the privacy of their bedrooms. That certainly sounds like conservatives want the government to stick it's nose into people's private lives to me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You really need to stop buying into the DNC and left-wing drive-by media lies... Nobody on the right to my knowledge has been bashing condoms and things like that. We just don't believe that as taxpayers we should have to pay your condoms and the pill, pay for your own.