Rand Paul

#51
#51
Franklin Pierce said:
If Paul runs, his views on drugs and amnesty and foreign policy will become more widely known, and the primary voters will decide whether his ideas are good or bad.

All you and I have are our own opinions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Should be an exciting race in 2016. I believe we will have a lot of options to choose from and hopefully the best one gets to represent us.
 
#52
#52
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#54
#54
With regards to the supposed unfairness of the justice system with a disproportionate effect on minorities, I leave this fact:

In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act was passed to more equally handle the legal punishment of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.

Crack cocaine is the cheaper and more easily accessible version to poorer people. Powder cocaine is the more expensive kind more likely to be used by wealthier people.

Prior to this act, a person in possession of only 5 grams of crack cocaine would receive a mandatory 5-year minimum sentencing, whereas a person possessing powder cocaine would have to have 100 grams to receive a similar punishment. A person with 10 grams of crack cocaine would receive 10 years of minimum sentencing; but it would take 1000 grams of powder to receive a similar punishment.

One of the effects of the War on Drugs was the disproportionate punishment of the poor and minorities, especially with regards to cocaine possession.

Now, I by no means support ending the War on Drugs, or think that legalizing drugs will make everything fine and dandy. But, I do think there are still things which more negatively affect minorities in our legal system, and it is right to discuss those things.
 
#55
#55
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Wut? You mean the small fact that liberals look to the government for everything and libertarians want the government out of their lives completely?
Click to expand...

I've got Franklin Pierce on my ignore list. I just happened to see you quote him in your reply. You should probable ignore him, too.
 
#56
#56
Franklin Pierce said:
There is a dead bankers thread if you are interested in reading the stuff there.

Drugs like heroin and cocaine generally are connected to acts of violence sooner or later. Paul is wrong.
Click to expand...

This is where it started. The Harrison narcotic act.

The drafters played on fears of “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes” and made references to Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and “Chinamen” seducing white women with drugs.[16][17] Dr. Hamilton Wright, testified at a hearing for the Harrison Act. Wright alleged that drugs made blacks uncontrollable, gave them superhuman powers and caused them to rebel against white authority. Dr. Christopher Koch of the State Pharmacy Board of Pennsylvania testified that "Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain".[4]

Before the Act was passed, on February 8, 1914, The New York Times published an article entitled "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are New Southern Menace: Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower-Class Blacks" by Edward Huntington Williams, which reported that Southern sheriffs had increased the caliber of their weapons from .32 to .38 to bring down Negroes under the effect of cocaine.[4][8][12]

Despite the extreme racialization of the issue that took place in the buildup to the Act's passage, the contemporary research on the subject indicated that black Americans were in fact using cocaine and opium at much lower rates than white Americans.[18]

Btw this stuff is what our drug laws are based on.

Here's what a PROFESSIONAL has to say on the subject Franklin. You should listen to it and learn some things.

http://duncantrussell.com/dr-drew/#/vanilla/discussion/embed/?vanilla_discussion_id=0
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#59
#59
JoeKyleVol said:
With regards to the supposed unfairness of the justice system with a disproportionate effect on minorities, I leave this fact:

In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act was passed to more equally handle the legal punishment of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.

Crack cocaine is the cheaper and more easily accessible version to poorer people. Powder cocaine is the more expensive kind more likely to be used by wealthier people.

Prior to this act, a person in possession of only 5 grams of crack cocaine would receive a mandatory 5-year minimum sentencing, whereas a person possessing powder cocaine would have to have 100 grams to receive a similar punishment. A person with 10 grams of crack cocaine would receive 10 years of minimum sentencing; but it would take 1000 grams of powder to receive a similar punishment.

One of the effects of the War on Drugs was the disproportionate punishment of the poor and minorities, especially with regards to cocaine possession.

Now, I by no means support ending the War on Drugs, or think that legalizing drugs will make everything fine and dandy. But, I do think there are still things which more negatively affect minorities in our legal system, and it is right to discuss those things.
Click to expand...

those laws were in response to the crack epidemic that was sweeping the streets at the time. Refine the punishment if you want but don't suggest they were invented to hold black and poor people down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#61
#61
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
Interesting article. Reaffirms my earlier theory that the Senate gridlock will continue as at least three of them try to outflank one another on the right. Cruz and Paul for sure. To a lesser degree Rubio.

Did you see Cruz yesterday, flanked by Bachmann and some of that cabal? He's out there, man. Or at least he is presenting himself that way.
Click to expand...

I want the gridlock to continue forever. It's better that nothing gets passed that the wrong things get passed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
Interesting article. Reaffirms my earlier theory that the Senate gridlock will continue as at least three of them try to outflank one another on the right. Cruz and Paul for sure. To a lesser degree Rubio.

Did you see Cruz yesterday, flanked by Bachmann and some of that cabal? He's out there, man. Or at least he is presenting himself that way.
Click to expand...


I don't agree about Paul trying to outflank Cruz on the right. Paul has moved to the middle on a few things. He realizes he can not win the general being too far right
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
Interesting article. Reaffirms my earlier theory that the Senate gridlock will continue as at least three of them try to outflank one another on the right. Cruz and Paul for sure. To a lesser degree Rubio.

Did you see Cruz yesterday, flanked by Bachmann and some of that cabal? He's out there, man. Or at least he is presenting himself that way.
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz is correct, and Rand Paul is even crazier than his daddy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
Gramps said:
I don't agree about Paul trying to outflank Cruz on the right. Paul has moved to the middle on a few things. He realizes he can not win the general being too far right
Click to expand...

I don't think he's ever been too far right on social issues (unlike Cruz).

The big beef with him from the R party is foreign policy and he's probably waffling there some but this action on the PA helps.
 
#71
#71
His dad is out with a message about a coming economic collapse. I haven't watched the video but he's aligned with some investment guy.

Ain't helping his boy as it looks like he has some financial interest in promoting doom.
 
#72
#72
volinbham said:
His dad is out with a message about a coming economic collapse. I haven't watched the video but he's aligned with some investment guy.

Ain't helping his boy as it looks like he has some financial interest in promoting doom.
Click to expand...

It's coming.

His dad is a smart man. Obviously, it's not the right time. But it's coming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#74
#74
Mtntrout said:
That's impressive. Both the stand itself and being willing to work across the isle to make that stand.
Click to expand...

I bet his views would have broad appeal. In his short time in the Senate he's been principled and relatively non-partisan. The question is does one agree with the principles.

I'd love to have a Senate full of people who serve like him - stand on principle or issue rather than politics; cooperate with whoever shares the principle regardless of principle.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top