Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Freiheit Reich]

The Simpsons episode regarding the 2 aliens running against each other perfectly showed this. Even when people found out it was evil aliens running for president, they still voted for one of them because they refused to vote for an alternative party.

You may be shocked to learn that that episode was not based on historical events.

Maybe not but it predicted the 2008 and 2012 elections.

[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.

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.

I read this part, and I still don't see how this undermines my argument. But very well.

[Valica]

Even though I dislike her, I will probably vote for Hilary Clinton.
I agree with her more than I agree with Rand Paul.

This'll be my first time voting... I'm glad, too. If I had voted last election, it might have been for a libertarian.
Education and knowledge are beautiful things. It's good that I escaped that ignorance when I did.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

"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.

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.

There is no such thing as a public accommodation; it is nothing more than a legal construct. The definition of ownership does not change if I decide to trade with other people.

[Ifreann]

The real question is, what will he beat her with?

With a stick, from behind. But on a horse, with a lance? That woman's unbeatable.

[Farnhamia]

Not even remotely accurate.

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

There is no such thing as a public accommodation; it is nothing more than a legal construct. The definition of ownership does not change if I decide to trade with other people.

Your opinion is noted. Now, get back to the topic: Can Rand Paul beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Race?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Rand Paul is right about this.

For example, the media would blast a store that refused to sell to blacks. The store might attract a few openly racist customers but there would be protests and even hidden racists wouldn't go because they wouldn't want friends to think they are racist by supporting the store. Most people would boycott the store and it would suffer and might even go bankrupt.

Most store owners, even racist ones, will not turn down money. A few will discriminate (such as the Colorado bakery that didn't not to bake a cake for a gay wedding) but most will not.

Why keep the rules when it might affect 1% of businesses.

Same for hiring: most managers will try to hire the best employees. An educated, well dressed/groomed black man with a normal name with proper English speaking ability and better qualifications than the other applicants will get the job with most firms.

Yes-the name matters regardless of race. Names such as Latoyah or Lakeesha, or Jamal make people think of negative black stereotypes. The parents were rebellious against mainstream society and this is a reason they chose such a name and the employer will assume the child is also rebellious against mainstream society. Also, gangster rap videos have created unfair stereotypes against blacks.

In fairness: A white person with a hippie name like Apple or Rainbow will probably get his application tossed out for the same reason. Parents need to give their children traditional names.

A few employers will refuse to hire certain races but their competitors will happily hire the best qualified applicants and in the long run, the competitors will come out ahead. The free market will solve the issue. I will admit, blacks have a slight disadvantage due to bad stereotypes given to them because of gangster rap videos and movies like 'Boyz in the Hood' though but it can be overcome (the proof is the many blacks that have been very successful).

A very well thought out post, it's really a shame that....all of history completely disagrees with it. Businesses will put 'moral' or 'social' issues ahead of profit because businesses are run by people. Employers will consider things having nothing to do with qualifications/experience/work history because employers are people. The reason these things aren't quite as common and blatant these days is because of laws that Rand Paul, his daddy, and assorted other "Libertarians" and "Conservatives" constantly rail against because they're totally the one thing standing in the way of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market Fairy leading us all to Utopia.

Free Market fanatics really have about as much evidence going for them as Communists, always being left to cry "No, no, the only reason it failed miserably is because they weren't doing it right!".

You're right, profit is always the number one motive for a business owner, which is why they have to listen to public demand. A business cannot arbitrarily set prices or choose what products to sell. It needs to know what the customer wants. And as a customer, I can tell you that a chip shop with a sign on the front saying "No blacks allowed" would not exactly be popular with the market. It's all about public attitudes and reputation.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

There is no such thing as a public accommodation; it is nothing more than a legal construct. The definition of ownership does not change if I decide to trade with other people.

Your opinion is noted. Now, get back to the topic: Can Rand Paul beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Race?

Sorry, I'll try not to thread-jack again.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

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.

Alright, fair enough. He was never the Republican frontrunner. The mainstream GOP, even Fox News, hated Ron Paul and did their best to sabotage him. But Rand Paul, at the moment, is the frontrunner. He also has been given verbal support from Reince Priebus and some of the RNC. They may even have already given him an advantage in the primaries.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Indeed. The funny thing is those that use that phrase think they are being original. I remember the liberts having it in print when I was at Uni. They had this silly test where basically everybody was a libert to some degree......

libertarianism: where 1984 is an instruction manual and scientology is a business model.

That's the most ridiculous straw man I've ever seen. That book depicts a socialist totalitarian superstate that controls every aspect of people's lives; the goal of libertarianism is to minimise the amount of control the government has over individuals.

[Murkwood]

Constitution Party?

And you call yourself a minarchist.

Nah, he was talking to to me.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Not going to happen. He does things like sprint from dangerous questions ala the two Dream people questioning the stance on immigration and trying to say "oh but I had another interview"

He is trying the Regan route of talking as though he never said something but he doesn't have the chops to pull it off.

For example, when he started out he was all about foreign entanglements and de-funding Israel. Talked about how well they can handle themselves, etc.

Now, he is the best friend and always has been the stalwart supporter......

Indeed. Like I said, he's spineless.

Which I guess explains why people would vote for the Constitution Party over the Pauls. Both sides are dominionists who seek to systematically rob people of their civil freedoms through the (statist) doctrine of "state's rights". But at least the likes of Virgil Goode are somewhat honest about it.

Rand Paul is not a dominionist. He's far more socially liberal than any other Republican candidate. "State's rights" has historically been used as an excuse to restrict people's freedoms, and is anti-constitutional as far as ignoring the rest of the Constitution. But states' powers is still a very important function of the US political system, and big state government is vastly preferable to big federal government because it means that tyranny is usually localised and confined to a much smaller area of land.

[Murkwood]

I guess I'd have to.

So, you'll not vote for dominionist Rand Paul but you'd vote for the dominionists in the dominionist party?

You could put it that way.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

So, you'll not vote for dominionist Rand Paul but you'd vote for the dominionists in the dominionist party?

You could put it that way.

I just can't understand why any so-called "conservative" would prioritise killing brown people abroad over actually shrinking the size of government. It's people like you who got into office on "smaller gubmint" rhetoric, but ended up being okay with ballooning the size of the state enormously just to quash the threat of "terrorism". Neoconservatives are little more than warmongering liberals.

[Murkwood]

You could put it that way.

I just can't understand why any so-called "conservative" would prioritise killing brown people abroad over actually shrinking the size of government. It's people like you who got into office on "smaller gubmint" rhetoric, but ended up being okay with ballooning the size of the state enormously just to quash the threat of "terrorism". Neoconservatives are little more than warmongering liberals.

It's not "killing brown people". It's fighting terrorism and tyrants, to make the world a better and safer place.

Plus, NeoCons do support shrinking the size of government, just not Defense.

[The Black Forrest]

A very well thought out post, it's really a shame that....all of history completely disagrees with it. Businesses will put 'moral' or 'social' issues ahead of profit because businesses are run by people. Employers will consider things having nothing to do with qualifications/experience/work history because employers are people. The reason these things aren't quite as common and blatant these days is because of laws that Rand Paul, his daddy, and assorted other "Libertarians" and "Conservatives" constantly rail against because they're totally the one thing standing in the way of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market Fairy leading us all to Utopia.

Free Market fanatics really have about as much evidence going for them as Communists, always being left to cry "No, no, the only reason it failed miserably is because they weren't doing it right!".

You're right, profit is always the number one motive for a business owner, which is why they have to listen to public demand. A business cannot arbitrarily set prices or choose what products to sell. It needs to know what the customer wants. And as a customer, I can tell you that a chip shop with a sign on the front saying "No blacks allowed" would not exactly be popular with the market. It's all about public attitudes and reputation.

Yeaaaaahhhh!!!! I like the myth of the self correcting free market.

Please tell me another libertarian bed time fairy tale!

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed. Like I said, he's spineless.

Which I guess explains why people would vote for the Constitution Party over the Pauls. Both sides are dominionists who seek to systematically rob people of their civil freedoms through the (statist) doctrine of "state's rights". But at least the likes of Virgil Goode are somewhat honest about it.

Rand Paul is not a dominionist. He's far more socially liberal than any other Republican candidate. "State's rights" has historically been used as an excuse to restrict people's freedoms, and is anti-constitutional as far as ignoring the rest of the Constitution. But states' powers is still a very important function of the US political system, and big state government is vastly preferable to big federal government because it means that tyranny is usually localised and confined to a much smaller area of land.

Hmmm.

So fifty tyrants are better then one?

Wait need to break that down to local level so how many tyrants are that?

[Arkolon]

I just can't understand why any so-called "conservative" would prioritise killing brown people abroad over actually shrinking the size of government. It's people like you who got into office on "smaller gubmint" rhetoric, but ended up being okay with ballooning the size of the state enormously just to quash the threat of "terrorism". Neoconservatives are little more than warmongering liberals.

It's not "killing brown people". It's fighting terrorism and tyrants, to make the world a better and safer place.

Plus, NeoCons do support shrinking the size of government, just not Defense.

You do know the real reason the US had to kill all those brown people in the Middle East, right?

Neocons have a different idea of "free market". A "free market" is pro-business in neocon parlance, whereas it is pro-market in libertarian parlance.

[Arkolon]

Rand Paul is not a dominionist. He's far more socially liberal than any other Republican candidate. "State's rights" has historically been used as an excuse to restrict people's freedoms, and is anti-constitutional as far as ignoring the rest of the Constitution. But states' powers is still a very important function of the US political system, and big state government is vastly preferable to big federal government because it means that tyranny is usually localised and confined to a much smaller area of land.

Hmmm.

So fifty tyrants are better then one?

Wait need to break that down to local level so how many tyrants are that?

Implying every form of authority is a form of tyranny.

[Kelinfort]

A very well thought out post, it's really a shame that....all of history completely disagrees with it. Businesses will put 'moral' or 'social' issues ahead of profit because businesses are run by people. Employers will consider things having nothing to do with qualifications/experience/work history because employers are people. The reason these things aren't quite as common and blatant these days is because of laws that Rand Paul, his daddy, and assorted other "Libertarians" and "Conservatives" constantly rail against because they're totally the one thing standing in the way of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market Fairy leading us all to Utopia.

Free Market fanatics really have about as much evidence going for them as Communists, always being left to cry "No, no, the only reason it failed miserably is because they weren't doing it right!".

You're right, profit is always the number one motive for a business owner, which is why they have to listen to public demand. A business cannot arbitrarily set prices or choose what products to sell. It needs to know what the customer wants. And as a customer, I can tell you that a chip shop with a sign on the front saying "No blacks allowed" would not exactly be popular with the market. It's all about public attitudes and reputation.

It works in theory, but the reality is very different.

[Valica]

You're right, profit is always the number one motive for a business owner, which is why they have to listen to public demand. A business cannot arbitrarily set prices or choose what products to sell. It needs to know what the customer wants. And as a customer, I can tell you that a chip shop with a sign on the front saying "No blacks allowed" would not exactly be popular with the market. It's all about public attitudes and reputation.

Aww, that's cute. You actually believe that's how it would work?
I feel bad for you, man. All that fairy dust and smoke can't be good for your eyes.

[Murkwood]

It's not "killing brown people". It's fighting terrorism and tyrants, to make the world a better and safer place.

Plus, NeoCons do support shrinking the size of government, just not Defense.

You do know the real reason the US had to kill all those brown people in the Middle East, right?

Neocons have a different idea of "free market". A "free market" is pro-business in neocon parlance, whereas it is pro-market in libertarian parlance.

The real reason was to stop the spread of terror, topple a horrific tyrant and a terrorist group posing as a government, and find WMDs most intelligence agencies said existed.

I don't really get your second point. NeoCons are pro-market.

[Arkolon]

You're right, profit is always the number one motive for a business owner, which is why they have to listen to public demand. A business cannot arbitrarily set prices or choose what products to sell. It needs to know what the customer wants. And as a customer, I can tell you that a chip shop with a sign on the front saying "No blacks allowed" would not exactly be popular with the market. It's all about public attitudes and reputation.

It works in theory, but the reality is very different.

You do realise every other point made on that article agrees with Lerodan?

[Kelinfort]

It works in theory, but the reality is very different.

You do realise every other point made on that article agrees with Lerodan?

Except for the result.

[Arkolon]

You do know the real reason the US had to kill all those brown people in the Middle East, right?

Neocons have a different idea of "free market". A "free market" is pro-business in neocon parlance, whereas it is pro-market in libertarian parlance.

The real reason was to stop the spread of terror, topple a horrific tyrant and a terrorist group posing as a government, and find WMDs most intelligence agencies said existed.

I don't really get your second point. NeoCons are pro-market.

The US didn't go there just to kill brown people, but to safeguard the black stuff they were sitting on.

Would neocons free up trade union restrictions? Would neocons cease to give subsidies to businesses? Do neocons support union-stomping?