Rand Paul's platform within his speech / 15 points worth debating

[SwimExpert]

14.) wants to repeal laws that disproportionately incarcerates blacks/latinos

What exactly does this mean? Are you going to relax laws for minorities just to make it look good on paper? If blacks and latino's commit more crimes as a percentage of the population then their numbers in prison SHOULD be higher. I suspect he's setting up some kind of drug legalization stance.

I expressed something similar. How can something written be the cause. A law doesn't come into play unless someone breaks it.

Actually, a law comes into play when a cop stops and frisks you because you "look" black suspicious.

 

[Conservative65]

14.) wants to repeal laws that disproportionately incarcerates blacks/latinos

What exactly does this mean? Are you going to relax laws for minorities just to make it look good on paper? If blacks and latino's commit more crimes as a percentage of the population then their numbers in prison SHOULD be higher. I suspect he's setting up some kind of drug legalization stance.

I expressed something similar. How can something written be the cause. A law doesn't come into play unless someone breaks it.

Actually, a law comes into play when a cop stops and frisks you because you "look" black suspicious.

Based on the premise of #14, isn't about looking suspicious, it's about actually having done something. It deals with INCARCERATION which means the person was proven guilty in a court of law nor just someone checking things out. Next thing you'll tell me is that those proven guilty weren't, that professional wrestling is real, and the moon landing was fake.

 

[rightwinger]

Paul promises to bring back manufacturing jobs that pay well, by lowering the tax on those companies. Paul envisions building new highways and bridges in the USA not by raising taxes, but by lowering taxes on companies with manufacturing jobs outside of the USA, so that the estimate 2-3 Trillion in profits would be here rather than there. That is his point of argument.

Looks like glorified trickle down

Those were also my thoughts, but I was simply recording what he said at the time.

My experience is that any time you lower taxes on companies like that, they just keep the money

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It should be reminded that Rush Limbaugh, in a move that is entirely legal but morally questionable, started "operation chaos" in 2008 in order to drag out the Democratic nomination process. He did this by getting Republicans voters to cross party lines in states where this is allowed (open, semi-open primaries is the term, or in the case of Pennsylvania, state laws that allow party switches up to 24 hours before a primary) and to get them to vote for either Obama or Hillary, depending on the state. Well, in 2016, it would not surprise me with a crowded GOP field, as we expect it might be, for a Democrat to suggest the same thing of Democrats to do to Republicans...

LOL! Limbaugh specifically "(took) a page out of the Democrat Playbook..." with "Operation Chaos".

The Democrats ROUTINELY cross party lines in Republican Primaries...

Excellent recap of the Ran Speech.

Although I find little value in reasoning which seeks to find answers through equations framed in Political Party Terms. The reason for that, is that... THE PROBLEM is that BOTH PARTIES suffer from Progressive infection.

The Democrats are of course a corpse which has succumbed to the parasite, while the GOP is seriously infected and probably terminally so... but is still alive and fighting, doing everything it can but setting itself on fire, to rid itself of it.

There's not a single problem in the United States; or Western Civilization for that matter, which is not a direct consequence of Left-think, thus the inevitable consequence of Relativism.

 

[SwimExpert]

14.) wants to repeal laws that disproportionately incarcerates blacks/latinos

What exactly does this mean? Are you going to relax laws for minorities just to make it look good on paper? If blacks and latino's commit more crimes as a percentage of the population then their numbers in prison SHOULD be higher. I suspect he's setting up some kind of drug legalization stance.

I expressed something similar. How can something written be the cause. A law doesn't come into play unless someone breaks it.

Actually, a law comes into play when a cop stops and frisks you because you "look" black suspicious.

Based on the premise of #14, isn't about looking suspicious, it's about actually having done something. It deals with INCARCERATION which means the person was proven guilty in a court of law nor just someone checking things out. Next thing you'll tell me is that those proven guilty weren't, that professional wrestling is real, and the moon landing was fake.

Let's assume for a moment that marijuana use is equally frequent between blacks, Hispanics, and non Hispanic whites. I don't have stats off hand, but to illustrate the mechanism let's say for argument's sake that it's 10% of people, regardless of race. Now, let's take 300 people and send them walking down the street in proportions approximately equal to the US population, 135 whites (45%) 120 blacks (40%) 45 Hispanics (15%). Pick out 30 (10% of the total), stop and frisk for shits and giggles. There is a 10% chance the person frisked will be found with maryjane and subsequently get arrested. If all races are equally stopped and frisked without prejudice, the resulting drug charges will approximate the frequency of each race within the greater group of 300 people. That is to say, about 45% of the people found with maryjane will be white, 40% will be black, and 15% will be Hispanic. Any given individual has a 10% chance of being frisked, and then 10% of those people will have maryjane on them. This leads to 1% of people being both frisked and having maryjane.

This works out as, for every 300,000 people in the population we should expect to see drug charges for approximately 1,350 whites, 1,200 blacks, and 450 Hispanics.

However, non-prejudicial police scrutiny does not typically exist. Of the 30 people stopped and frisked, only 3 of them will be white (thus a .02% chance they will be frisked, substantially lower than the 10% sampling). The remaining 27 will be composed of 15 blacks, and 12 Hispanics. Since every person has a 10% chance of having maryjane on them, that will result in drug charges for .002 whites, 1.5 blacks, and 1.2 Hispanics in the 300 person sample.

That is to say that for every 300,000 people in the population we now will see drug charges for approximately 2 whites, 1500 blacks, and 1200 Hispanics.

So, while your point is correct that (at least assuming general perfection in the trial and conviction process) conviction requires breaking the law in the first place, it is also a largely irrelevant point to the phenomenon that he was addressing. The laws that result in over representation of minorities in the correctional system are things like petty offenses and victimless crimes that typically rely on police interactions which stem from subjective decision making processes. They are also state and local policies that further empower subjective police intrusion, though those would be outside of the venue of federal action.

 

[Slyhunter]

14.) wants to repeal laws that disproportionately incarcerates blacks/latinos

What exactly does this mean? Are you going to relax laws for minorities just to make it look good on paper? If blacks and latino's commit more crimes as a percentage of the population then their numbers in prison SHOULD be higher. I suspect he's setting up some kind of drug legalization stance.

I expressed something similar. How can something written be the cause. A law doesn't come into play unless someone breaks it.

Actually, a law comes into play when a cop stops and frisks you because you "look" black suspicious.

Based on the premise of #14, isn't about looking suspicious, it's about actually having done something. It deals with INCARCERATION which means the person was proven guilty in a court of law nor just someone checking things out. Next thing you'll tell me is that those proven guilty weren't, that professional wrestling is real, and the moon landing was fake.

Let's assume for a moment that marijuana use is equally frequent between blacks, Hispanics, and non Hispanic whites. I don't have stats off hand, but to illustrate the mechanism let's say for argument's sake that it's 10% of people, regardless of race. Now, let's take 300 people and send them walking down the street in proportions approximately equal to the US population, 135 whites (45%) 120 blacks (40%) 45 Hispanics (15%). Pick out 30 (10% of the total), stop and frisk for shits and giggles. There is a 10% chance the person frisked will be found with maryjane and subsequently get arrested. If all races are equally stopped and frisked without prejudice, the resulting drug charges will approximate the frequency of each race within the greater group of 300 people. That is to say, about 45% of the people found with maryjane will be white, 40% will be black, and 15% will be Hispanic. Any given individual has a 10% chance of being frisked, and then 10% of those people will have maryjane on them. This leads to 1% of people being both frisked and having maryjane.

This works out as, for every 300,000 people in the population we should expect to see drug charges for approximately 1,350 whites, 1,200 blacks, and 450 Hispanics.

However, non-prejudicial police scrutiny does not typically exist. Of the 30 people stopped and frisked, only 3 of them will be white (thus a .02% chance they will be frisked, substantially lower than the 10% sampling). The remaining 27 will be composed of 15 blacks, and 12 Hispanics. Since every person has a 10% chance of having maryjane on them, that will result in drug charges for .002 whites, 1.5 blacks, and 1.2 Hispanics in the 300 person sample.

That is to say that for every 300,000 people in the population we now will see drug charges for approximately 2 whites, 1500 blacks, and 1200 Hispanics.

So, while your point is correct that (at least assuming general perfection in the trial and conviction process) conviction requires breaking the law in the first place, it is also a largely irrelevant point to the phenomenon that he was addressing. The laws that result in over representation of minorities in the correctional system are things like petty offenses and victimless crimes that typically rely on police interactions which stem from subjective decision making processes. They are also state and local policies that further empower subjective police intrusion, though those would be outside of the venue of federal action.

If 90% of the people in a high crime area are black then 90% of the people to be frisked in that area should be black.

You don't expect them to go to a low crime area, where it's mostly white, to frisk just to prove they are being fair would you? That's like airports searching old ladies for weapons at an airport.

 

[SwimExpert]

If 90% of the people in a high crime area are black then 90% of the people to be frisked in that area should be black.

You don't expect them to go to a low crime area, where it's mostly white, to frisk just to prove they are being fair would you? That's like airports searching old ladies for weapons at an airport.

Then again White Suburbia is one of the highest crime areas in the country. Cops just don't bother as much with those teenagers smoking pot and drinking underage.

Then again, you still have missed the point, which is no surprise since you're a fucking idiot. The main problem is subjective intervention by police.

 

[g5000]

You should probably listen to what he said again. Science and R&D belong in the private sector for the most part in my opinion. We end up spending way too much with no benefit with government handouts to political donors. Look no further than Solyndra

Okay, let's do that:
U.S. Expects $5 Billion Profit From Program That Funded Solyndra - Bloomberg Business

A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.

“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”

 

[g5000]

It's ridiculous and ignorant to be 'against' the NSA, "strongly" or otherwise; the notion is completely meaningless.

And the data-gathering is 'warrantless' because no 'warrant' is required; the data-gathering is not pursuant to criminal prosecution, none of the information gathered can be used in a criminal proceeding, nor does the NSA have any desire to prosecute anyone.

You are incredibly naive.

 

[Slyhunter]

If 90% of the people in a high crime area are black then 90% of the people to be frisked in that area should be black.

You don't expect them to go to a low crime area, where it's mostly white, to frisk just to prove they are being fair would you? That's like airports searching old ladies for weapons at an airport.

Then again White Suburbia is one of the highest crime areas in the country. Cops just don't bother as much with those teenagers smoking pot and drinking underage.

Then again, you still have missed the point, which is no surprise since you're a fucking idiot. The main problem is subjective intervention by police.

the main problem is liberals like yourself being blind to reality. Most cops don't care about a persons color.

 

[Siete]

mike leaves with gaping ass ..

 

[g5000]

My biggest problem with Rand Paul is that his positions shift in the political wind. He is completely unlike his father in this respect. He has far more polish than his dad, and a better hairdo, but he is way too shifty for my liking. I just can't trust him.

There is a difference between being flexible, adapting to realities on the ground, and being a shifty poll watcher who takes a position based on what one thinks the people want to hear.

Rand Paul is a poll watcher. His principles are very, very soft. The only thing which separates him from every other Republican is that he comes from a Libertarian starting point and then adjusts his rhetoric from there.

That is the biggest difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Cruz is immovable. He's a total maniac, but he sticks to his guns.

They are both similar in being demagogues, but have different styles.

 

[RKMBrown]

My biggest problem with Rand Paul is that his principles are soft. His positions shift in the political wind. He is completely unlike his father in this respect. He has far more polish than his dad, but he is way too shifty for my liking. And so I just can't trust him.

There is a difference between being flexible, adapting to realities on the ground, and being a shifty poll watcher who takes a position based on what he thinks the people want to hear. Rand Paul is a poll watcher.

That is the biggest difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Cruz is immovable. He's a total maniac, but he sticks to his guns.

They are both similar in being demagogues, but have different styles.

ROFL... really? What did he "shift" on?

Gotta love democrats... they scream for years that republicans will never change on any subjects, then when one of them supposedly "changes" on a subject the scream and cry foul... look at the republican changing with the political winds... ROFL yeah like democrats never change with the shifting tide of the majority view.

 

[rightwinger]

My biggest problem with Rand Paul is that his principles are soft. His positions shift in the political wind. He is completely unlike his father in this respect. He has far more polish than his dad, but he is way too shifty for my liking. And so I just can't trust him.

There is a difference between being flexible or adaptable to realities on the ground and being a shifty poll watcher. Rand Paul is a poll watcher.

That is the biggest difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Cruz is immovable. He's a total maniac, but he sticks to his guns.

They are both similar in being demagogues, but have different styles.

I think Rand Paul is serious about being President......Cruz isn't

Cruz wants to be crowned leader of the Conservative movement. He knows that won't win the Presidency. Paul is softening his rhetoric and moving to the center in anticipation of the primaries

 

[g5000]

My biggest problem with Rand Paul is that his principles are soft. His positions shift in the political wind. He is completely unlike his father in this respect. He has far more polish than his dad, but he is way too shifty for my liking. And so I just can't trust him.

There is a difference between being flexible, adapting to realities on the ground, and being a shifty poll watcher who takes a position based on what he thinks the people want to hear. Rand Paul is a poll watcher.

That is the biggest difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Cruz is immovable. He's a total maniac, but he sticks to his guns.

They are both similar in being demagogues, but have different styles.

ROFL... really? What did he "shift" on?

Drones, defense, taxes.

 

[g5000]

Lowering taxes on companies that have offshored jobs is not going to bring those jobs back here. Taxes are not the biggest manufacturing expense. Wages are.

Whatever savings a company would realize with lower taxes would be more than offset by the higher wages we have here.

It is a mistake to believe the unemployment problem is due to not enough lava lamp assembly jobs. That is a huge mistake.

The unemployment problem is due to two things. The massive public/private debt overhang, and an education system that has been declining in quality for decades.

Lava lamp assembly jobs belong in low skilled, poor infrastructure Third World countries. US jobs should be focused on high tech innovation. And that requires high tech education.

 

[RKMBrown]

My biggest problem with Rand Paul is that his principles are soft. His positions shift in the political wind. He is completely unlike his father in this respect. He has far more polish than his dad, but he is way too shifty for my liking. And so I just can't trust him.

There is a difference between being flexible or adaptable to realities on the ground and being a shifty poll watcher. Rand Paul is a poll watcher.

That is the biggest difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Cruz is immovable. He's a total maniac, but he sticks to his guns.

They are both similar in being demagogues, but have different styles.

I think Rand Paul is serious about being President......Cruz isn't

Cruz wants to be crowned leader of the Conservative movement. He knows that won't win the Presidency. Paul is softening his rhetoric and moving to the center in anticipation of the primaries

heh... When was Rand's rhetoric hard? He gets a lot of hardballs thrown at him but for the most part Rand has always been more to the center than the hard line conservatives like Cruz. Rand has never been his dad and never will be. Rand shares some views with his dad, but has never been a full out libertarian like his dad.

 

[RKMBrown]

My biggest problem with Rand Paul is that his principles are soft. His positions shift in the political wind. He is completely unlike his father in this respect. He has far more polish than his dad, but he is way too shifty for my liking. And so I just can't trust him.

There is a difference between being flexible, adapting to realities on the ground, and being a shifty poll watcher who takes a position based on what he thinks the people want to hear. Rand Paul is a poll watcher.

That is the biggest difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Cruz is immovable. He's a total maniac, but he sticks to his guns.

They are both similar in being demagogues, but have different styles.

ROFL... really? What did he "shift" on?

Drones, defense, taxes.

link to how he shifted on drones, defense, or taxes.

 

[g5000]

Rand Paul is tough when it comes to our liberties...

Armed drones over America BAD!



Rand Paul is also tough on crime...

Killing liquor store holdup man with armed drones GOOD!

 

[SwimExpert]

the main problem is liberals like yourself being blind to reality. Most cops don't care about a persons color.

No, the problem is liberals like you who are statist whores.