- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Rand Paul Displays His New Rope-A-Dope Skills On MSNBC
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:11 am
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:11 am
Paul makes a joint appearance with Cory Booker, and at about the 7:50 mark, the host tries to bait Paul into a discussion on the Civil Rights Act, but Paul refuses to take the bait. When you're senator running for President, the one thing you can't afford to do is get into complex philosophical discussions on hot-button issues, and Paul found that out the hard way on Rachel Maddow's show four years ago.
LINK /
LINK /
6
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:13 am to trackfan
quote:
trackfan
trackfan? More like hackfan.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:14 am to trackfan
When did the Civil Rights Act become hot-button again?
How'd he do? Can't watch vids right now.
How'd he do? Can't watch vids right now.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:23 am to Navytiger74
quote:
When did the Civil Rights Act become hot-button again?
How'd he do? Can't watch vids right now.
The host brought it up out of the blue during a discussion with Booker and Paul about their propsed REDEEM Act to change the country’s criminal justice system. Paul said that he wouldn't get into a philosophical discussion on the Civil Rights Act, because the last time he did, half the network's host used it to label him a racist and he didn't think it was fair. He handled himself well IMO.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:26 am to trackfan
on the MHP show this weeked she had a panel of black people discussing racial issues (don't know if that's her show now or i just caught the comedy act live by accident), and they were pushing this. it's going to be a meme for those interest groups
i think they even contrasted it from Obama's "anti-gay" comments in 2008
i think they even contrasted it from Obama's "anti-gay" comments in 2008
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Did you catch how Michael Eric Dyson was defending Paul? I thought that was significant since Dyson is about as hardcore leftist as they come.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:29 am to trackfan
He's being pretty foolish about this. Just say you evolved or changed your mind for fricks sake. Outright denial or attacking the media for something you are caught on camera saying isn't going to work.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:30 am to trackfan
somewhat
he has probably the second most annoying delivery of any of the MSNBC contingent (behind rev al)
i think i tuned out b/c i just can't listen to him talk (if he's agreeing with me or disagreeing with me)
quote:
since Dyson is about as hardcore leftist as they come.
he has probably the second most annoying delivery of any of the MSNBC contingent (behind rev al)
i think i tuned out b/c i just can't listen to him talk (if he's agreeing with me or disagreeing with me)
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:34 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:Because he never said he was against it like they were saying he was. They were misrepresenting what he said.
He's being pretty foolish about this. Just say you evolved or changed your mind for fricks sake. Outright denial or attacking the media for something you are caught on camera saying isn't going to work.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:40 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Because he never said he was against it like they were saying he was. They were misrepresenting what he said.
bullshite. He's on camera saying the exact opposite, that he was against forcing private businesses to end segregation and would have worked to change that provision had he been in congress at the time.
He could address the issue and move on, but he seems to be following the Romney plan of doubling down on a stupid comment, or worse, denying you ever said it in the first place. The denial and shifting of blame to the media will become a bigger issue than the comment itself.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:43 am to Old Hellen Yeller
It's always dangerous for politicians to get into philosophical discussion that require you to hold two conflicting thoughts in your head at the same time. For example, there legal scholars who personally believe that women should have a right to abortion on demand but who also believe that Roe vs Wade was decided wrongly. Similarly, there are folks who supported the Civil Rights Act, but who also concede that the parts dealing with private property infringe on the constitution.
EDIT: In Paul's case, he couldn't have possibly opposed the Civil Rights Act when it was voted on since he was one year old at the time. Obviously, it was a philosophical discussion, and the main point is that he says he has no interest in relitigating it.
EDIT: In Paul's case, he couldn't have possibly opposed the Civil Rights Act when it was voted on since he was one year old at the time. Obviously, it was a philosophical discussion, and the main point is that he says he has no interest in relitigating it.
This post was edited on 8/1/14 at 9:47 am
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:44 am to trackfan
He handled it very poorly. Ari Melber gave Rand Paul every opportunity to say that he's evolved on his former Civil Rights Act views, and instead he whined about being attacked.
Also, Paul brought up the fact that this is a civil rights issue, after which he was asked why he's evolved (giving him his first opportunity to say that he's evolved) on civil rights. And then he got extremely defensive.
Later on, after complaining about being attacked by MSNBC, he was asked again how he's evolved on his former position, and he called MSNBC out for being a 24 hour news network.
How is that handling it well?
Also, Paul brought up the fact that this is a civil rights issue, after which he was asked why he's evolved (giving him his first opportunity to say that he's evolved) on civil rights. And then he got extremely defensive.
Later on, after complaining about being attacked by MSNBC, he was asked again how he's evolved on his former position, and he called MSNBC out for being a 24 hour news network.
How is that handling it well?
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:46 am to trackfan
MSNBC is on the big screen at the gym. I have learned that it is the biggest steaming pile of shite "news show" in existence.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:49 am to TotesMcGotes
I'd rather him show principle. He feels he was misrepresented before and saying he's evolved admits he was portrayed correctly by MSNBC and that was their intent, surely. He did not concede.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 9:52 am to Tiguar
Well he's on tape saying one thing, and now he's acting like it never happened and blaming the network for it. That's a good thing? That's showing principle?
Posted on 8/1/14 at 10:00 am to TotesMcGotes
Did he act like it never happened or did he say he didn't want to go into it because people wrongly used it to label him a racist. That's not showing a lack of principle...it's showing discretion and awareness of how shallow the media can be.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 10:11 am to cwill
Depends on your interpretation, I suppose. Four years ago he was asked if he supported the Civil Rights Act and he said he objected to a few key parts of it. Now he's saying that he always supported the Civil Rights Act and then complained about MSNBC.
Again, the worst part is that he had an opportunity to leave it all in the past and say that he's evolved. Or, if he felt that those provisions of the CRA that he mentioned 4 years ago are still worth discussing, he should have explained why. Backing away and pointing the finger at the network wasn't the right choice.
Again, the worst part is that he had an opportunity to leave it all in the past and say that he's evolved. Or, if he felt that those provisions of the CRA that he mentioned 4 years ago are still worth discussing, he should have explained why. Backing away and pointing the finger at the network wasn't the right choice.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 10:16 am to TotesMcGotes
quote:
“What I would say to be fair to myself, because I like to be fair to myself, is that I’ve always been in favor of the Civil Rights Act,” Paul responded. “People need to get over themselves writing all this stuff that I’ve changed my mind on the Civil Rights Act. Have I ever had a philosophical discussion about all aspects of it? Yeah, and I learned my lesson: To come on MSNBC and have a philosophical discussion, the liberals will come out of the woodwork and go crazy and say you’re against the Civil Rights Act, and you’re some terrible racist.”
“And I take great objection to that, because, in Congress, I think there is nobody else trying harder to get people back their voting rights, to get people back and make the criminal justice system fair,” he added. “So I take great offense to people who want to portray me as something that I’m not.”
Saying you object to a few key parts of the Act and the above do not conflict and do not indicate a lack of principle. You can't have the nuanced conversation he tried to have with a liberal network like MSNBC and expect a reasonable, rational response.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 10:26 am to cwill
I guess my problem with it is that I thought msnbc was being fair enough to him allowing him the opportunity to explain himself and he instead chose to turn around and walk away.
What a great opportunity to do one of two things: admit you were wrong and explain that you've moved on, or (and this would be my preference), explain yourself on your own terms. They gave him an open forum to discuss something I imagine he's replayed in his head countless times over the past 4 years. Was he misrepresented on that network before? Maybe. He certainly thinks so. So then the network gives him a golden opportunity to explain himself, clear the air, make sure everyone knows what page he was on, and he said frick it.
What a great opportunity to do one of two things: admit you were wrong and explain that you've moved on, or (and this would be my preference), explain yourself on your own terms. They gave him an open forum to discuss something I imagine he's replayed in his head countless times over the past 4 years. Was he misrepresented on that network before? Maybe. He certainly thinks so. So then the network gives him a golden opportunity to explain himself, clear the air, make sure everyone knows what page he was on, and he said frick it.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 10:29 am to cwill
quote:
You can't have the nuanced conversation he tried to have with a liberal network like MSNBC and expect a reasonable, rational response.
He didn't try to have a conversation. MSNBC asked him about his own comments, caught on tape, and he fell into the typical lie, deny, blame the liberal media, victim role that conservatives love to play.
He WILL have to answer for his comments. The longer he tries to shift blame to MSNBC or denies saying it the longer they can run the tape and let his words speak for themselves.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News