relax

Author Topic: Thoughts on last night's primaries in Kentucky, Arkansas, Pennsylvania?  (Read 4628 times)

Offline daisy

  • President
  • **************
  • Posts: 5714
  • Gender: Female
You know, I had no idea who Rand Paul was until this controversy.  But in every interview I watch with the guy, he has evaded every question asked of him and will not address the questions directly.  It's a huge turn-off.  He is very much a traditional politician in this respect.  I don't trust him because he won't articulate what he really feels.  He answers questions with questions.  If Barnes and Noble were denying the perks based on race, I would think that is wrong.  If a restaurant denies someone service because of race, that is wrong.  If a home owner denies to sell or rent you space because of your race, it's wrong.  He says the federal government should not regulate that.  Well if not, then do you mean the state should?  He has not said that in the interviews either.  He has not said what recourse someone should have regarding racial discrimination.  To say that one should not patronize an establishment that engages in these practices is not an answer.  It's a cop out that does not deal with a real problem.  And there are plenty of people in the world still full of prejudice unfortunately.

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
  To say that one should not patronize an establishment that engages in these practices is not an answer.  It's a cop out that does not deal with a real problem.  And there are plenty of people in the world still full of prejudice unfortunately.
:evil:


Prejudice is shockingly current, and that exists even with govt employees.
A Queens African-American woman, 2010 not 1910, was told by a resident
'You do not belong here, you should move.' I want to believe the younger generation is better than this.


I think that if you come to the question that govt involvement is a net plus, then of course you want intervention. (You may not be able to understand contrary views.) I guess the worry is that there is so much private prejudice that community standards need to intervene. If it is that prevalent, we have bigger worries. If it is not, there is choice among private businesses.
[Do you think golf memberships must accept all races and both genders? You may very well. Racists are likely to congregate in any case.]
I think though that I am with you that govt was right to be sure public schools in any state accepted students regardless of race.
What should be enforced in a Catholic school?

K noted settled law and history, I would like to hear him touch on that. Because this is KY, the south, it makes a stronger impression.
I think the folks of KY will weigh the risks and rewards of the candidates. [Consider too that Senators ratify Court nominees.] As I have heard from other candidates, he should say that if you discriminate on basis of race, vote for another candidate. He should reject those votes.
The primary was just a step. What is the meaning if in the end KY ends with a Democrat Senator and PA ends with a Republican?

In NY, folks may not even be aware of their lens. When a Dem is on FoxNews, they are often evasive. Maybe not Ed Rendell or Weiner, bless it.
I did not find this link so helpful but listen to these questions on Washington Journal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mrHlfOMFlE&feature=related


Whoever the Senator, at least they would be only 1 vote of 100. Maybe they can persuade 2-50+ votes in the Senate. But thanks to a system of check and balances, a law needs the signature and enforcement of the President. And the laws need to pass Constitutional concerns under the Supreme Court.
While I would not want Randal to represent me or NY, I would like to see Senators like him as a check on the current government.

Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Daisy, I mean this as lovingly as possible but I doubt there would be much chance you'd support a guy like Rand Paul in any event.  I don't see you as having much of a Republican streak anytime in the future.  I am not too jazzed about Paul myself.  Yes, I hope he wins as his overall views are much closer to mine and I'd like to see some checks on Democratic Party power.  But his strong associations with the Tea Party are troubling, because they can be very easily spun as a negative.  The old tactic of ignorant people casting another group as ignorant because they don't march in lockstep to the "correct" political ideology.  Silencing dissent, if you will.

Interesting example Kempster gives with Barnes and Noble's customer loyalty program.  I'm not sure if that's discrimination, per se.  The way I see it, that is a perfectly legal business arrangement, and there shouldn't even be a question as to whether the government has the right to intervene (they don't).  As Daisy said, if Barnes were denying people member perks on the basis of race, THAT would be a problem.  One interesting and troubling trend is that minority groups on our college campuses are self segregating.  But that's a tangent and best reserved for another thread.

By the way, Paul has categorically denied that he will join any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rand-paul-i-will-not-support-any-efforts-to-repeal-the-civil-rights-act-1.php
Two thoughts on that: when you have to deny something of that nature, you're in big trouble.  AND, is there such an effort underway that I wasn't aware of?  It seems like a silly statement to issue.

Offline daisy

  • President
  • **************
  • Posts: 5714
  • Gender: Female
Oh that's ok, Billz!  I get what you are saying and you are right, I probably wouldn't.  But I was surprised and vaguely amused by his evasiveness in the Rachel Maddow interview and the ABC one I saw today.  He kept answering questions with more questions and I started playing a game to see how many times I could count him saying "Now what I find interesting yadda yadda yadda" instead of directly answering the question.  And who in the world mentioned repealing the Civil Rights Act to him?  Is there even a movement to do so?  It's settled law.  The whole thing is so weird.  Why would he have to deny supporting such a thing?  I'm just not sure why this is even an issue, and why he won't just answer a question on if he thinks it's a problem if someone is denied housing over their race.  Even if it's a privately owned house.

I realize race is a particularly thorny issue and there are many layers, but if you're going to say private businesses are able to do whatever they want to people, then you should at least say what legal recourse you would like someone to have, who is denied housing, who is denied service at a restaurant, denied entrance to the golf course, etc. etc.  These are real problems that do happen and to allow them to flourish like it's just ok to have it happen just doesn't sit well with me. 

I'm not happy with a lot of politicians and it's commonplace for them to evade questions.  But if you're going to make a statement, at least back it up with what you think should happen if said discrimination is taking place.

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
I agree that that the more open and direct a candidate is, the better. I have seen candidates boldly answer a question with the 'wrong answer'. I did not like the answer but I welcomed the frankness. (Why I think wider spectrums will listen to frank candidates of different parties.)

[I want to see how candid court nominee Kagan will be.

http://capitaltonight.com/2010/05/now-raises-questions-about-kagans-stance-on-abortion/
 ]
The candidate debates in KY, PA and elsewhere may be fascinating. Not so sure if the ones in NY will be worth watching.

Not everything has a legal remedy. In some cases, a restaurant or property may not be granted permits if they discriminate on the basis of race.
But I think the focus of many in KY is more on the harm of govt intervention than on this issue.

It is biased but interesting that Rand finds TEA party events to be 10 x larger than the GOP ones he attends.
However, it is a mistake to me if TEA tries to 'wall itself off' from dialogue with other viewpoints.
Collegiality, discussion, and perhaps even compromise is a large part of work in the US Senate.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 12:26:26 PM by TRX »
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Debbie

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1151
Using the example cited above, most companies discriminate - there are so many out there that reward regular customers.  This is so different however, to a shop keeper putting up a sign that says 'No Irish / Italians / Jews etc.'

Allowing that to happen is taking the Libertarian viewpoint a bit too far, don't you think?

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
Re: Thoughts on bigotry and intervention
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2010, 12:44:34 PM »
I think there may be some confusion. It would be terrible to see a racist or bigoted sign.
I dont think any party would welcome that.

I would say that some would accept such a sign, just as some would allow 'All races welcomed', or 'Smoking allowed', or 'Straight and Gay friendly'.

Unless it changes soon, this is the official LP platform.

Quote
3.5    Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.


You are correct, it does not speak to private business or church affairs.

http://www.sfweekly.com/bestof/2010/award/best-political-activist-bisexual-escort-1983701/

= The winner of SF Weekly's Best Political Activist/Bisexual Escort designation described a recent day when he went looking for somewhere to settle down to enjoy a takeout meal, and ended up sitting on Polk Street. "I could be arrested for no more than wanting to enjoy the beautiful city and I live in--and eat my lunch."

(As jokey as it sounds, the dude(chick?) is actually quite eloquent. But in his works, that pays.)
PS you got my curiosity. Libertarians in KY have not nominated a candidate for Senate. I imagine most would vote for the Republican.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 12:58:57 PM by TRX »
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
I didn't mean to use my example to imply discrimination as defined legally. It may not have been the best example.
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org

Not surprising, lots of voting dollars.

Quote
Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak and Republican former Rep. Pat Toomey, both ran as anti-establishment candidates to secure primary victories in Pennsylvania's Senate race, but they aren't shunning the Beltway completely, especially when it comes to fundraising.


http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003668290

Anti-D.C. Candidates Still Want K St. Cash
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Allowing that to happen is taking the Libertarian viewpoint a bit too far, don't you think?

True.  But the odd thing is that no one is proposing such a thing (though I am sure his opponents will try to suggest otherwise).  So why the need to put his foot in his mouth on what is a settled issue?  Kempster and Daisy have both raised that question, and I agree, it's totally bizarre and bad strategy to boot.  My best guess is that he's expressing his philosophy out loud in a theoretical context.  I take it as a matter of course that he's not in favor of allowing racial discrimination to happen, he just has thoughts on whose role it is to prevent it.  Another interesting example from a theoretical standpoint is gay marriage.  Most libertarians would probably be against gay marriage, but only because they believe government shouldn't be involved in anyone's marriage, at all.  But of course, we already have heterosexual marriage, so you come across as a bigoted blowhard if you aren't extremely careful about what you say.

The problem, though, is that he's a candidate running for major office.  It's best to avoid saying things that will hurt your campaign, and race is a political third rail!

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
equality and beyond Re: Thoughts on last night's primaries
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2010, 04:11:31 PM »

Congrats Billz, would be happy to hear about your wedding blessings.

I am starting to wonder if I am unclear about the GOP and Dems.

http://www.outrightusa.org/issues.html

Quote
In contrast to other parties, the Libertarian Party has included sexual rights, including equal marriage and adoption, equal military service, and the end of sodomy laws, ever since its 1976 platform.


Yes, some libertarians would rather not have state sponsored marriage. But the majority that I know in NY support marriage equality and have been engaged here on the issue for nearly 10 years. The questions about marriage equality is not just a wedding day.

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons

A lot to digest.
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Re: equality and beyond Re: Thoughts on last night's primaries
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2010, 04:26:14 PM »
Congrats Billz, would be happy to hear about your wedding blessings.

I am starting to wonder if I am unclear about the GOP and Dems.

http://www.outrightusa.org/issues.html


Yes, some libertarians would rather not have state sponsored marriage. But the majority that I know in NY support marriage equality and have been engaged here on the issue for nearly 10 years. The questions about marriage equality is not just a wedding day.

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons

A lot to digest.

I was joking with Debbie in a thread on the main page that I have ruined my mystique by mentioning that I'm married.  You guys must think my wife has nerves of steel to put up with my usual rhetorical shtick.   :-)

Marriage is such a complex issue.  The outright USA page you linked to makes the point that libertarians believe that the government should only be involved as a keeper of records, which is a good point.  But let's face it, purely theoretical and abstract.  It's like the old joke about the economist stranded on an island with cans of food but no way to open them who says "first, let us assume a can opener."  The government already recognizes hetero marriages.  The toothpaste is out of the tube and can't be put back in.  So now what?

I myself am not a pure Libertarian by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I am uncomfortable with the increasing scope of government involvement in our lives.  To me, marriage (or whatever you want to call it) should ideally be between you and your spouse and whatever institution you choose to seal the deal, such as your preferred religious institution.  But again, this is just theoretical and ideal.  The government has already conferred rights and privileges upon straight married people.  To do so for whole new classes of people makes me cringe, not because I don't think that gay people deserve the right to express their love and commitment in the same way as straight people, but because I don't necessarily believe the government should have gotten involved in the first place.  With anyone's marriage, gay, straight, martian, or earthling.

So while it's a philosophical quandary, the best solution is probably just to confer the same rights on everyone and try to gradually scale back on the public cost in dollars and in the scope of governmental intrusion into our lives.

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
Re: equality and beyond Re: Thoughts on last night's primaries
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2010, 04:36:57 PM »
I was joking with Debbie in a thread on the main page that I have ruined my mystique by mentioning that I'm married.  You guys must think my wife has nerves of steel to put up with my usual rhetorical shtick.   :-)

Marriage is such a complex issue.  The outright USA page you linked to makes the point that libertarians believe that the government should only be involved as a keeper of records, which is a good point.  But let's face it, purely theoretical and abstract.  It's like the old joke about the economist stranded on an island with cans of food but no way to open them who says "first, let us assume a can opener."  The government already recognizes hetero marriages.  The toothpaste is out of the tube and can't be put back in.  So now what?

 seal the deal


I think many libertarians in NY would prefer your views than mine.

So did your wife get as good a deal as you?
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
Hey TRX,

I'm curious as to what you mean by state sponsored marriage.

For me, it's more a matter of being able to address the issues that my partner and I are facing when it comes to things like taxes.

I'm not even really pushing for marriage in a religious sense. I view it more as being able to enter into a contract with my partner that will simplify many issues we are facing. For instance, we have a joint investment with a private equity firm that I have no idea how to report on our taxes since they have to be separate.

Straight couples are forced to worry about this if they are married.
'
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
Re: Thoughts on last night's primaries
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2010, 12:38:28 PM »
A few random items,
there already is a tax on salaries, so why not salt itself (or soda).


State sponsored marriages. To me that means being dependent on the state to have a marriage recognized.
I find the idea of a Quaker marriage to be beautiful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_wedding

Could go further on this.

I thought it was provocative, courageous, and justified back when the mayor of New Paltz tried to move marriage forward.
Only recently read the challenges through the NY Courts. (interesting)


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127845693

NPR Poll Shows Tough Road Ahead For Democrats

Selected poll opinions in swing districts, Dem and GOP.

Said pollster Stan Greenberg:
Quote
"In a year where voters want change and which Democrats are seen to be in power this is a tough poll, about as tough as you get."

** Found a bit about Greenberg's clients, hopefully that does not color their research **
« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 12:50:35 PM by TRX »
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta


 

Visit our sister site Jackson Heights Life