Rand Paul Wins Primary!

[Timshel]

Another, point... Opinions change. If you pulled up something I posted years ago it might not agree with my views today. That is true of all rational people who consider new information and don't just constantly use confirmation bias.

For instance, my views on abortion have changed and morphed. One reason for that is I was always on the fence a bit on the subject. I went from being pro-life, to pro choice with limits on late term abortion, to completely pro choice and then back to pro choice with limits on late term abortion (see the thread I started on "When Does Life End"). I think, my position now is probably stable as I delved deeply in that thread to find a bedrock where I could take my stand.

Note: I would not oppose a late term abortion for legitimate medical reasons, not necessarily requiring that it be life theatening, but not something as trivial as weight gain or the normal problems associated with pregnancy either.

I don't know that is true in Rand's case, but he is certainly entitled to change his opinion. I am sure if he did you guys will claim he is just doing it for political reasons and maybe that would be true. Or maybe this uproar will force him to look deeper into his views on the subject and sincerely come to a different conclusion.

I doubt there is any real interest on this subject which would only really make sense for a sc nominee or if there was some legitimate interest in repealing the CRA. It's just the usual political attempt to smear.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

No one asked Rand Paul if he thought citizens have the right to bear nuclear weapons. That’s a red herring, and I seriously doubt any legitimate journalist is ever going to ask him that question.

Don’t take offense at this, but I’ve mostly been given the impression that libertarians often proclaim they are above the fray. Policy wonks, flying magically above the fray of standard American political electioneering.

So, I would only note to you that it is very disingenuous for libertarians to claim to be above the fray, while themselves engaging in cartoonish and/or disparaging caricatures.

This is politics, and if libertarians are proud of their positions...

The media is leftist, though. When will Jack Conway have to answer for the philosophical extremes of left-wing policies that are not part of his campaign?

Like you, it defends more government at every turn by carting out progressivism as the reason for our country's prosperity rather than our Constitution. That an expansive interpretation of the Supreme Law is necessary to us moving ahead is a consistent belief you have expressed, and its led to very imprudent government we can't afford.

Now, anyone with a limited government view, who literally should be anyone with any sense of what's in store for us if we don't cut back, has to just sit there and take the label of racist or Anarchist, or segregationist because they propose a policy of less government.

The refrain being "well, the segregationists said they were for limited government too." Again, this is because Rand Paul is dangerous to his opponents. I don't need to defend his philosophical underpinning of what he believes would be ideal, because that's not what he's running on.

What Stringfield said. You worship at the altar of government solutions, much like a caricature of a leftist I might add, but if you were a candidate yourself, you would offer solutions that your voters care about consistent with your beliefs...or you would fail trying to give them something they don't want.

Failure is not an option here, and after a little bit of organizational stalling, Rand realized the national media (who is not all that relevant to his victory in November) wants to pigeon-hole him as a libertarian ideologue who has to choose between all or nothing in his campaign to limit government.

That exercise is senseless. He developed his own platform in the primary that is just as applicable to Kentucky voters in the general and he needs to stick to it.

The fact that those ideas are catching on is a threat worth downplaying to a lot of people.

 

[Timshel]

To be fair, I think Conway should be asked how he feels about LBJ and the Democrats gutting of the 1957 CRA.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I don't follow Libertarian politics so I honestly had no prior knowledge of Rand Paul and his opinions or platform.

But after watching the entire 20-minute program, I was very, very uncomfortable with his take on civil rights. What I got out of it is that Paul says he's 100% against discrimination in the public sector but that others in the private sector should be allowed to make their own rules about who they cater to. This is a slippery slope that, IMO, could bring back all the abuses of the past.

If I misinterpreted Paul, let me know how.

Paul takes a hardline liberty over equality (a core principle in American life) approach to reform. I think we can all agree that the CRA has floated along some great ideals, but at the same time, they are one of numerous examples of where we promote equality and security over individual liberty.

Most people are willing to brush that under the carpet and hope for the best. Just not Rand Paul.