Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Rand Paul has plagiarized parts of his speeches from Wikipedia. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/01/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-rand-pauls-gattaca-speech-was-t/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/senator-rand-paul-faces-new-charges-of-plagiarism.html?_r=0

That's pretty funny. I really hope we don't have a President that isn't competent enough to atleast change the wording when he plagiarizes Wikipedia, of all things. Or a President that plagiarizes Wikipedia at all, for that matter.

Well, Biden was caught for plagiarising someone else's speech in the 80s. It stopped his presidential campaign, but at least he got VP.

[Bazrasha]

The problem is also that Paul opposes Title II of the Civil Rights Act.

He opposes giving businesses the freedom to hire whom they want? How does this make him a bad guy? If anything, it gives people more freedom.

Yay freedom of discrimination! Ain't it a wonderful thing?

[The Black Forrest]

That's pretty funny. I really hope we don't have a President that isn't competent enough to atleast change the wording when he plagiarizes Wikipedia, of all things. Or a President that plagiarizes Wikipedia at all, for that matter.

Well, Biden was caught for plagiarising someone else's speech in the 80s. It stopped his presidential campaign, but at least he got VP.

You would think Paul would be smart enough to have learned from that......

[Death Metal]

He opposes giving businesses the freedom to hire whom they want? How does this make him a bad guy? If anything, it gives people more freedom.

Yay freedom of discrimination! Ain't it a wonderful thing?

Do note you're talking to someone who has stated transpeople should be forced to wear a proverbial scarlet letter to mark that they are transpeople.

[Atlanticatia]

That's pretty funny. I really hope we don't have a President that isn't competent enough to atleast change the wording when he plagiarizes Wikipedia, of all things. Or a President that plagiarizes Wikipedia at all, for that matter.

Well, Biden was caught for plagiarising someone else's speech in the 80s. It stopped his presidential campaign, but at least he got VP.

That's definitely a smudge of Biden's record, too. I'm not sure why that matters, though. It's not like I'm going to support/not support plagiarism because of someone's political views.

But I mean, c'mon - Wikipedia? He could atleast use the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Meh, it does have a meaning.

Denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.

That guy claimed libertarians like Rand Paul had "broad appeal." And yet, he provided sources that said:

The trouble with Paul is that no well-known labels seem to fit him well. While his dad, Ron Paul, is a pretty straight-line libertarian, that's not really who the younger Paul is. He's not an establishment Republican, a neo-conservative, an arch-conservative or a moderate Republican.

We still don't know what label would be better than "tea party," but it's becoming clearer and clearer that this label doesn't really fit. Maybe he's just a Rand Paul Republican.

So either he's calling himself a denialist or he won't admit he's wrong.

That's an opinion, not a slice of empirical data. And it's also completely unrelated to the point I made.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

"Boo-hoo, libertarians are better debaters than me so they're just silly poopy trolls.

Boy did I show them! Now I don't have to construct a serious argument to confront their points!"

You're not better debaters by calling people deanialist and statist. It makes you look immature. Like right now.

I don't think you understand what denialism means. That you've singled out libertarians for using it in particular indicates that you probably don't know what it means. Here:

In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".

I think you're criticism of me for using that word is irrational and misplaced, since what I said was the equivalent of calling out someone for a logical fallacy. Dyakovo said that Rand Paul only appealed to libertarians, an assertion that is demonstrably false considering that a) he is an elected Senator from a conservative district and b) he is polling fairly competitively against Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul has an average 40.6% approval rating against Hillary's 49.5%. I highly doubt that 40.6% of the American public are either Ron Paul fans or libertarians. So while I called out someone's comment that is obviously not true, you're just focused on the fact that I used the word denialism. You're not confronting any of the points I made.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Yay! How can We resist the offer of the freedom to be discriminated against?!?

You big silly. The free market would correct that.

Racism bad so people stop going to store so store goes out of business. See the free market will solve everything!

C'mon, let's be serious here - what outwardly racist business is successful? I can't think of one. Maybe the Civil Rights Act did help extinguish private sector discrimination, maybe it didn't. I'd have to see the data first. But I really don't think repealing Title II, which is more a matter of principle above all else, would have much of an effect at all on equal access to the market.

[Dyakovo]

You're not better debaters by calling people deanialist and statist. It makes you look immature. Like right now.

I don't think you understand what denialism means. That you've singled out libertarians for using it in particular indicates that you probably don't know what it means. Here:

In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".

I think you're criticism of me for using that word is irrational and misplaced, since what I said was the equivalent of calling out someone for a logical fallacy. Dyakovo said that Rand Paul only appealed to libertarians, an assertion that is demonstrably false considering that a) he is an elected Senator from a conservative district and b) he is polling fairly competitively against Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul has an average 40.6% approval rating against Hillary's 49.5%. I highly doubt that 40.6% of the American public are either Ron Paul fans or libertarians. So while I called out someone's comment that is obviously not true, you're just focused on the fact that I used the word denialism. You're not confronting any of the points I made.

Polls taken years prior to an election are indicative of nothing. Rand Paul has the same following his father did. This is in no way "broad appeal".

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

He opposes giving businesses the freedom to hire whom they want? How does this make him a bad guy? If anything, it gives people more freedom.

Yay freedom of discrimination! Ain't it a wonderful thing?

Discrimination sucks, it really does. I once came out of a gay bar late at night with some friends and when we walked up to a taxi the driver refused to take us anywhere after seeing where we'd come from, so I had to walk home in the rain. Anecdotes aside, it is against both the First Amendment and against the individual's right as a property owner to prevent them from choosing who can trade with them.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I don't think you understand what denialism means. That you've singled out libertarians for using it in particular indicates that you probably don't know what it means. Here:



I think you're criticism of me for using that word is irrational and misplaced, since what I said was the equivalent of calling out someone for a logical fallacy. Dyakovo said that Rand Paul only appealed to libertarians, an assertion that is demonstrably false considering that a) he is an elected Senator from a conservative district and b) he is polling fairly competitively against Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul has an average 40.6% approval rating against Hillary's 49.5%. I highly doubt that 40.6% of the American public are either Ron Paul fans or libertarians. So while I called out someone's comment that is obviously not true, you're just focused on the fact that I used the word denialism. You're not confronting any of the points I made.

Polls taken years prior to an election are indicative of nothing. Rand Paul has the same following his father did. This is in no way "broad appeal".

When I said broad appeal, I was referring to two particular groups. But it doesn't matter whether it means nothing in relation to the election, because I was just demonstrating that right now he has a decent shot at winning, compared to other Republicans.

Please point me to a poll that ever said that Ron Paul had a 40% approval rating.

[Atlanticatia]

You big silly. The free market would correct that.

Racism bad so people stop going to store so store goes out of business. See the free market will solve everything!

C'mon, let's be serious here - what outwardly racist business is successful? I can't think of one. Maybe the Civil Rights Act did help extinguish private sector discrimination, maybe it didn't. I'd have to see the data first. But I really don't think repealing Title II, which is more a matter of principle above all else, would have much of an effect at all on equal access to the market.

Not racist, but Chick-fil-A was openly homophobic. It's President/COO Dan Cathy has made many public comments opposing LGBT rights. Also, Chick-fil-A has donated through their charitable foundation to many anti-LGBT rights groups. Chik-Fil-A's sales soared even as these things occurred. Laws are necessary to ensure all people have protection from discrimination, and that there is no social exclusion of LGBT people, etc.

[Dyakovo]

Yay freedom of discrimination! Ain't it a wonderful thing?

Discrimination sucks, it really does. I once came out of a gay bar late at night with some friends and when we walked up to a taxi the driver refused to take us anywhere after seeing where we'd come from, so I had to walk home in the rain. Anecdotes aside, it is against both the First Amendment and against the individual's right as a property owner to prevent them from choosing who can trade with them.

No it isn't. The First Amendment does not, in any way, grant a "right" to discriminate. Nor does the owner of a public accommodation have the "right" to discriminate. If you do business with the public, you have an obligation to do business with all of the public, not just the ones with a skin tone or ideology you like.

[The Black Forrest]

Yay freedom of discrimination! Ain't it a wonderful thing?

Discrimination sucks, it really does. I once came out of a gay bar late at night with some friends and when we walked up to a taxi the driver refused to take us anywhere after seeing where we'd come from, so I had to walk home in the rain. Anecdotes aside, it is against both the First Amendment and against the individual's right as a property owner to prevent them from choosing who can trade with them.

All that matters is the customers attitude, their demands and their ability to pay. All else is irrelevant.

[Death Metal]

C'mon, let's be serious here - what outwardly racist business is successful? I can't think of one. Maybe the Civil Rights Act did help extinguish private sector discrimination, maybe it didn't. I'd have to see the data first. But I really don't think repealing Title II, which is more a matter of principle above all else, would have much of an effect at all on equal access to the market.

Not racist, but Chick-fil-A was openly homophobic. It's President/COO Dan Cathy has made many public comments opposing LGBT rights. Also, Chick-fil-A has donated through their charitable foundation to many anti-LGBT rights groups. Chik-Fil-A's sales soared even as these things occurred. Laws are necessary to ensure all people have protection from discrimination, and that there is no social exclusion of LGBT people, etc.

It should be noted that the bad PR did eventually force them to go cut off their support to hate groups.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

C'mon, let's be serious here - what outwardly racist business is successful? I can't think of one. Maybe the Civil Rights Act did help extinguish private sector discrimination, maybe it didn't. I'd have to see the data first. But I really don't think repealing Title II, which is more a matter of principle above all else, would have much of an effect at all on equal access to the market.

Not racist, but Chick-fil-A was openly homophobic. It's President/COO Dan Cathy has made many public comments opposing LGBT rights. Also, Chick-fil-A has donated through their charitable foundation to many anti-LGBT rights groups. Chik-Fil-A's sales soared even as these things occurred. Laws are necessary to ensure all people have protection from discrimination, and that there is no social exclusion of LGBT people, etc.

And there was an enormous public backlash, despite the fact that the chain did not actually discriminate against serving LGBT people. Perhaps this had something to do with the added publicity, and the "homoscepticism" of so much of the American public. But I highly doubt many people would flock to a store known in the media for its hostility to blacks.

[Death Metal]

Discrimination sucks, it really does. I once came out of a gay bar late at night with some friends and when we walked up to a taxi the driver refused to take us anywhere after seeing where we'd come from, so I had to walk home in the rain. Anecdotes aside, it is against both the First Amendment and against the individual's right as a property owner to prevent them from choosing who can trade with them.

All that matters is the customers attitude, their demands and their ability to pay. All else is irrelevant.

Well, depends on how you define a customer's attitude. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a shopkeeper to be at least wary of someone who shoplifted from his store in the past.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Discrimination sucks, it really does. I once came out of a gay bar late at night with some friends and when we walked up to a taxi the driver refused to take us anywhere after seeing where we'd come from, so I had to walk home in the rain. Anecdotes aside, it is against both the First Amendment and against the individual's right as a property owner to prevent them from choosing who can trade with them.

No it isn't. The First Amendment does not, in any way, grant a "right" to discriminate. Nor does the owner of a public accommodation have the "right" to discriminate.

"The right of the people to peacefully assemble" is the clincher here. If porn and corporate donations are free speech, then so is discriminating against others.

If you do business with the public, you have an obligation to do business with all of the public, not just the ones with a skin tone or ideology you like.

No such obligation exists. I own my car, no one else does. I own my jacket, no one else does. I own my phone, no one else does. When I owned my small business, no one else owned it. My car was not a relationship with the community. Nor was my jacket, my phone, and certainly not my small business. The word "ownership" does not change definitions just because someone wishes to perform a task in exchange for compensation. And the word doesn't change definitions just because someone wishes to purchase your service or good. If I don't like someone who comes into my store or cinema or whatever, I have every right to kick them out, because it's my damn place. I might be a racist fucking asshole or just someone who doesn't want people I don't like coming into my store. It doesn't matter. If I own it, I can do whatever the hell I like with it.

[The Black Forrest]

No it isn't. The First Amendment does not, in any way, grant a "right" to discriminate. Nor does the owner of a public accommodation have the "right" to discriminate.

"The right of the people to peacefully assemble" is the clincher here. If porn and corporate donations are free speech, then so is discriminating against others.

If you do business with the public, you have an obligation to do business with all of the public, not just the ones with a skin tone or ideology you like.

No such obligation exists. I own my car, no one else does. I own my jacket, no one else does. I own my phone, no one else does. When I owned my small business, no one else owned it. My car was not a relationship with the community. Nor was my jacket, my phone, and certainly not my small business. The word "ownership" does not change definitions just because someone wishes to perform a task in exchange for compensation. And the word doesn't change definitions just because someone wishes to purchase your service or good. If I don't like someone who comes into my store or cinema or whatever, I have every right to kick them out, because it's my damn place. I might be a racist fucking asshole or just someone who doesn't want people I don't like coming into my store. It doesn't matter. If I own it, I can do whatever the hell I like with it.

The obligation exists because the local communities support it.

Anyway. What does this have to do with Rand and Hillary?

[Norstal]

Polls taken years prior to an election are indicative of nothing. Rand Paul has the same following his father did. This is in no way "broad appeal".

When I said broad appeal, I was referring to two particular groups. But it doesn't matter whether it means nothing in relation to the election, because I was just demonstrating that right now he has a decent shot at winning, compared to other Republicans.

Please point me to a poll that ever said that Ron Paul had a 40% approval rating.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1750.html

Oh that's from the same site you gave us by the way. I'm sure you knew about how horribly Ron Paul did in the Republican primaries.

[Atlanticatia]

Not racist, but Chick-fil-A was openly homophobic. It's President/COO Dan Cathy has made many public comments opposing LGBT rights. Also, Chick-fil-A has donated through their charitable foundation to many anti-LGBT rights groups. Chik-Fil-A's sales soared even as these things occurred. Laws are necessary to ensure all people have protection from discrimination, and that there is no social exclusion of LGBT people, etc.

And there was an enormous public backlash, despite the fact that the chain did not actually discriminate against serving LGBT people. Perhaps this had something to do with the added publicity, and the "homoscepticism" of so much of the American public. But I highly doubt many people would flock to a store known in the media for its hostility to blacks.

It would be naive to think that there are no companies that discriminate, though. For example, someone who has a name that is "black-sounding" will often be skipped over for job interviews. White privilege definitely exists, and even though the days of outright pre-1960s discrimination is gone, there is still a lot of institutional racism. Your skin color, gender, and sexual orientation still dictate, to an extent, your opportunities in America. Anti-discrimination laws are needed to ensure that this unfortunate reality is mitigated.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And Hillary does..?

she is female so looks don't matter in getting the female vote

Again, most women don't vote based off of "Oh lookie, we both have a vagina".

[Norstal]

You're not better debaters by calling people deanialist and statist. It makes you look immature. Like right now.

I don't think you understand what denialism means. That you've singled out libertarians for using it in particular indicates that you probably don't know what it means. Here:

In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".

I think you're criticism of me for using that word is irrational and misplaced, since what I said was the equivalent of calling out someone for a logical fallacy. Dyakovo said that Rand Paul only appealed to libertarians, an assertion that is demonstrably false considering that a) he is an elected Senator from a conservative district and b) he is polling fairly competitively against Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul has an average 40.6% approval rating against Hillary's 49.5%. I highly doubt that 40.6% of the American public are either Ron Paul fans or libertarians. So while I called out someone's comment that is obviously not true, you're just focused on the fact that I used the word denialism. You're not confronting any of the points I made.

Keep reading that wiki article. Don't just read half of it.

In case you can't find it:

If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate. This is because denialism is both prescriptive—it carries implications that there is a truth that the other side denies—and polemic—since the accuser usually goes on to explain how the other party is denying the asserted truth and as such the other party is in the wrong, which leads to an implied accusation that if the accused party persist with the denial despite the evidence their motives must be base.

Don't stop there. Keep reading it. This is the last time I'll comment on this because it's off-topic. Everyone who reads my post will know who's in the wrong now.

[Dyakovo]

No it isn't. The First Amendment does not, in any way, grant a "right" to discriminate. Nor does the owner of a public accommodation have the "right" to discriminate.

"The right of the people to peacefully assemble" is the clincher here. If porn and corporate donations are free speech, then so is discriminating against others.

Not even remotely accurate.

If you do business with the public, you have an obligation to do business with all of the public, not just the ones with a skin tone or ideology you like.

No such obligation exists. I own my car, no one else does. I own my jacket, no one else does. I own my phone, no one else does. When I owned my small business, no one else owned it. My car was not a relationship with the community. Nor was my jacket, my phone, and certainly not my small business. The word "ownership" does not change definitions just because someone wishes to perform a task in exchange for compensation. And the word doesn't change definitions just because someone wishes to purchase your service or good. If I don't like someone who comes into my store or cinema or whatever, I have every right to kick them out, because it's my damn place. I might be a racist fucking asshole or just someone who doesn't want people I don't like coming into my store. It doesn't matter. If I own it, I can do whatever the hell I like with it.

A car, phone, or jacket is not a public accommodation.

[Ashmoria]

I wonder what the other 11% is.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democ ... white.aspx

no im not an ungrateful wretch, my internet went out due to rain as soon as I had my "thanks!" post made. I took a nap and now its back.

THANKS! that was just the info I was looking for.