As disgusted with Obama as many of us Democratic leaning voters are, why shouldn't we consider Ron Paul ? Is he really that bad ?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2011 7:03 PM GMT
    Ron Paul actually does have some good ideas and he is for the Civil rights of all, including gays, so what is so wrong with Ron Paul ? Doesn't he make a lot more sense than the top tier republicans ? Obama is so weak, gone so far right with his damn compromising before he even started to fight and promoted the war as if he were a NeoCon, so we might as well have someone like Ron Paul, why shouldn't or why should we vote for Ron Paul ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2011 8:34 PM GMT
    Every politician is crooked. They fill our heads with lies to make us like them, then go behind our backs and do unspeakably horrendous shit. That said, I have no trust whatsoever in any political leader or candidate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2011 9:10 PM GMT
    Ron Paul is, in my opinion, what could be called a "white nationalist." He is not explicitly a white supremacist, but he is definitely ideologically aligned with the patriot/militia/paleconservative movement. There are concrete reasons that the racist groups support him.

    There's always someone trying to forge a right-left populist alliance, whether Perot or Lyndon LaRouche. I don't see a problem working with those people, but I guess I'd try to win them away from their backward tendencies.

    Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination. If he were to run for president in November 2012, he would have to do so in the spirit of Perot. I would rather support a Cynthia McKinney type if I am going third party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 12:59 AM GMT
    Personally even though a lot of people think Ron Paul is rather 'out there' over his stance on auditing the fed, I think he is right in pushing it, and I also like his live and let live way of looking at social issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 1:30 AM GMT
    Ron Paul's voting record speaks for itself. If he can make it to the Alabama primary, he'll get my vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 1:50 AM GMT
    Sartre saidRon Paul is, in my opinion, what could be called a "white nationalist." He is not explicitly a white supremacist, but he is definitely ideologically aligned with the patriot/militia/paleconservative movement. There are concrete reasons that the racist groups support him.

    There's always someone trying to forge a right-left populist alliance, whether Perot or Lyndon LaRouche. I don't see a problem working with those people, but I guess I'd try to win them away from their backward tendencies.

    Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination. If he were to run for president in November 2012, he would have to do so in the spirit of Perot. I would rather support a Cynthia McKinney type if I am going third party.


    This post is filled with so much crap I don't know where to begin.

    Unless you can identify some kind of policy issue that targets a certain ethnic group there isn't a leg to stand on with this accusation.

    I can't believe so many liberals would rather see some social-conservative far-right person in office than Ron Paul who would probably stand for more gay rights than Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 2:12 AM GMT
    Sartre saidRon Paul is, in my opinion, what could be called a "white nationalist." He is not explicitly a white supremacist, but he is definitely ideologically aligned with the patriot/militia/paleconservative movement. There are concrete reasons that the racist groups support him.


    Ron Paul has softened his language nowadays but it is true that he has quite a nasty history of racist hate speech and writings.

    However, racism isn't part of his message now.

    Today he's all about isolationism. The appeal is strong: Ignore the rest of the world and all our problems will be solved.

    It's an easy message to sell. Most of us want simplicity.

    I'd have to think that China would celebrate a Ron Paul presidency far more than any of his supporters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 2:15 AM GMT
    PresentMind said
    Sartre saidRon Paul is, in my opinion, what could be called a "white nationalist." He is not explicitly a white supremacist, but he is definitely ideologically aligned with the patriot/militia/paleconservative movement. There are concrete reasons that the racist groups support him.


    Ron Paul has softened his language nowadays but it is true that he has quite a nasty history of racist hate speech and writings.

    However, racism isn't part of his message now.

    Today he's all about isolationism. The appeal is strong: Ignore the rest of the world and all our problems will be solved.

    It's an easy message to sell. Most of us want simplicity.

    I'd have to think that China would celebrate a Ron Paul presidency far more than any of his supporters.


    Would you mind sharing some of this "nasty racist hate speech" and "writings"?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Aug 16, 2011 6:28 AM GMT
    Personally, I thought Ron Paul was one of the most impressive in the recent Iowa debates. No, his delivery and presentation is not slick or polished like some of the other candidates, but that's part of what I like about him. He comes off as sincere and speaks from the heart. I like him more and more the more I hear him. He means "End These Wars and Take Care of America First" business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 7:04 AM GMT
    Doesn't Paul wan't to eliminate social security, medicare, Dept. of Ed, the EPA, and various other services?

    I'm also not a huge fan of leaving civil rights up to "the states"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 12:51 PM GMT
    I can sympathize with his view of us becoming entangled in overseas conflicts, but his view on Iran is, in my opinion, completely irresponsible. He correctly notes our acceptance of Pakistan and India having nuclear weapons, but making the equivalency with Iran is absurd. In addition to being a major supporter of terrorism, which could include providing terrorists with nuclear devices, Iran has stated their intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Coming from zealots, that warning must be taken seriously. While he was never a serious contender, I think his views on Iran completely disqualify him from any serious consideration or respect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 2:57 PM GMT
    Well lets deal in specifics, what are his views on Social Security ? What has he said that would place him as a white supremacist? What are his views on the economy ? Any sites or links we should read ?


    As far a world terrorism and Iran having Nukes, I don't like their rhetoric either but lets get real, Israel has around 120 Nukes according to what was exposed several years ago, Israel after all is the Middle Eastern nation with the record of number of international infractions, and human rights violations against its neighbor the Palestinians, it is the country chasing people off their land for the purposes of building settlements. All done with full support of the US.

    This hypocritical rhetoric of calling others terrorists while we are the world power spending the most militarily and involved in two wars while sending drones to terrorize villagers in an effort to get 'terrorists'. Actually other countries have more proof of terrorism against us in their eyes than what we do against them. We were attacked in 2001 killing 3,000, which was wrong, but in turn we have been in other countries now for 10 years tearing up the countryside, infrastructure and on and on, and its said that our actions have killed 300,000. Just because its us doing it, does not make it right, So I'm with Paul on ending these worthless wars which only serve to beg for blowback, and could anyone blame those who may wish to retaliate, while we interfere for our oil interests ? Is any country trying to interfere in our country to gain access or control of our Natural Gas reserves ? I think like Paul says its time to mind our own business and stop interfering in world affairs for our interests, Time to stop our elites from sending our young men as pawns for these resorce wars. One mans terrorist is anothers savior.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 4:39 PM GMT
    realifedad said Well lets deal in specifics, what are his views on Social Security ? What has he said that would place him as a white supremacist? What are his views on the economy ? Any sites or links we should read ?


    As far a world terrorism and Iran having Nukes, I don't like their rhetoric either but lets get real, Israel has around 120 Nukes according to what was exposed several years ago, Israel after all is the Middle Eastern nation with the record of number of international infractions, and human rights violations against its neighbor the Palestinians, it is the country chasing people off their land for the purposes of building settlements. All done with full support of the US.

    This hypocritical rhetoric of calling others terrorists while we are the world power spending the most militarily and involved in two wars while sending drones to terrorize villagers in an effort to get 'terrorists'. Actually other countries have more proof of terrorism against us in their eyes than what we do against them. We were attacked in 2001 killing 3,000, which was wrong, but in turn we have been in other countries now for 10 years tearing up the countryside, infrastructure and on and on, and its said that our actions have killed 300,000. Just because its us doing it, does not make it right, So I'm with Paul on ending these worthless wars which only serve to beg for blowback, and could anyone blame those who may wish to retaliate, while we interfere for our oil interests ? Is any country trying to interfere in our country to gain access or control of our Natural Gas reserves ? I think like Paul says its time to mind our own business and stop interfering in world affairs for our interests, Time to stop our elites from sending our young men as pawns for these resorce wars. One mans terrorist is anothers savior.


    From day one the Tea Party and Ron Paul have had the support of groups like stormfront.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 6:19 PM GMT
    Now despite what I said I would have no problem politically working with people with Ron Paul's politics and world outlook. Ron Paul is right about the need to withdraw US forces abroad, to respect national sovereignty, even for a so-called pariah like Iran. I might be on the political "left," but I think that national sovereignty and resisting world government are important principles. I also support the right to bear arms, nuclear power, and oppose the ecological crowd's anti-population growth and anti-economic growth standpoints. So there are good things to agree on.

    I am definitely not a libertarian on economic matters. That's the obvious divergence. But I think it would be wrong to simply view Ron Paul is a libertarian. He is, in my opinion, wanting to lead an essentially white reactionary traditionalist protest movement. He obviously cannot win an election for president unless there was a real economic collapse on a scale far worse than now. And if that were to happen, I think there are many better choices to lead a coalition of those disaffected by the establishment. At a minimum, we need a new New Deal, not a capitulation to the so-called "free market," which is certainly not free.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 6:32 PM GMT
    No jprich you don't need to go on, you have pretty well proved his connections to white supremacists, I'm looking up more on the subject too. White supremacists are against anyone of color whether it be blacks, Latin, Jews or Muslims and I cannot abide that. He has some good Ideas but mixed with this stuff puts a bad light on the whole of his politics. Maybe some of this is behind Rand Paul's statements about the Feds should leave it up to individual businesses whether or not they serve or discriminate against blacks.(he was specifically talking about restaurants)

    This white supremacist stuff would end it for me where Ron Paul is concerned, just as Perry and Bachmanns mixing religion in their politics ends it for me. both are dangerous belief systems.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Aug 16, 2011 7:47 PM GMT
    I also think part of the problem with Ron Paul when it comes to his telegenic appeal (or lack there of) is that he is in dire need of a good media rep and P.R. guy who will work with him to make sure he is coming across in the best "visual" way possible whenever he does interviews. Case in point is his fondness for doing interviews to major networks via SKYPE. Few people look their best on SKYPE, but Ron Paul comes off as looking all distorted and elongated, which does him no favors.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 8:40 PM GMT
    Sartre saidNow despite what I said I would have no problem politically working with people with Ron Paul's politics and world outlook. Ron Paul is right about the need to withdraw US forces abroad, to respect national sovereignty, even for a so-called pariah like Iran. I might be on the political "left," but I think that national sovereignty and resisting world government are important principles. I also support the right to bear arms, nuclear power, and oppose the ecological crowd's anti-population growth and anti-economic growth standpoints. So there are good things to agree on.

    I am definitely not a libertarian on economic matters. That's the obvious divergence. But I think it would be wrong to simply view Ron Paul is a libertarian. He is, in my opinion, wanting to lead an essentially white reactionary traditionalist protest movement. He obviously cannot win an election for president unless there was a real economic collapse on a scale far worse than now. And if that were to happen, I think there are many better choices to lead a coalition of those disaffected by the establishment. At a minimum, we need a new New Deal, not a capitulation to the so-called "free market," which is certainly not free.


    No. He's. Not. You aren't expressing an opinion, you're actually slandering an individual based on a severe disliking, if not hate. There isn't a shred of ACTUAL evidence, despite a slew of vacuous accusations, that Ron Paul is a white supremacist. Where are the direct quotes from his mouth or some quotes in writing? Even if personally he was (which he isn't), it would make no difference as far as policy is concerned unless he has indicated an intention to legislate anything remotely similar to such a purported personal ideology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 9:03 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Sartre saidNow despite what I said I would have no problem politically working with people with Ron Paul's politics and world outlook. Ron Paul is right about the need to withdraw US forces abroad, to respect national sovereignty, even for a so-called pariah like Iran. I might be on the political "left," but I think that national sovereignty and resisting world government are important principles. I also support the right to bear arms, nuclear power, and oppose the ecological crowd's anti-population growth and anti-economic growth standpoints. So there are good things to agree on.

    I am definitely not a libertarian on economic matters. That's the obvious divergence. But I think it would be wrong to simply view Ron Paul is a libertarian. He is, in my opinion, wanting to lead an essentially white reactionary traditionalist protest movement. He obviously cannot win an election for president unless there was a real economic collapse on a scale far worse than now. And if that were to happen, I think there are many better choices to lead a coalition of those disaffected by the establishment. At a minimum, we need a new New Deal, not a capitulation to the so-called "free market," which is certainly not free.


    No. He's. Not. You aren't expressing an opinion, you're actually slandering an individual based on a severe disliking, if not hate. There isn't a shred of ACTUAL evidence, despite a slew of vacuous accusations, that Ron Paul is a white supremacist. Where are the direct quotes from his mouth or some quotes in writing? Even if personally he was (which he isn't), it would make no difference as far as policy is concerned unless he has indicated an intention to legislate anything remotely similar to such a purported personal ideology.


    No one is saying he is, it's simply being pointed out that a number of such groups have put their support behind him, and anyone who's taken an introductory course to sociology can see why. His policies (as good natured as they may be) have one serious possibly unintended consequence, they stack the odds in favor of a particular group so much that it's not funny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 9:08 PM GMT


    This speaks for itself.

    Here's a black Ron Paul supporter:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 9:16 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie saidNo. He's. Not. You aren't expressing an opinion, you're actually slandering an individual based on a severe disliking, if not hate. There isn't a shred of ACTUAL evidence, despite a slew of vacuous accusations, that Ron Paul is a white supremacist. Where are the direct quotes from his mouth or some quotes in writing? Even if personally he was (which he isn't), it would make no difference as far as policy is concerned unless he has indicated an intention to legislate anything remotely similar to such a purported personal ideology.

    Let's unpack this.

    1. Evidence is located in the Univ. of Wisconsin library, which (as i noted above) has a collection of copies of "The Ron Paul Report", his personal newsletter that he hopes no one remembers.

    2. The links above include testimony from the head of the American Nazi Party, who asserts (just prior to 2007) that his people strategized with Ron Paul and Paul's aides quite openly. This too is quoted in my post.

    3. If you really think being a Nazi, or a Nazi pal, shouldn't matter to one's job performance (but getting a blowjob from a chubby female intern should) then your priorities are so fucked up that there's no real way to have a discussion.

    I've posted proof of Paul's white supremacist inclinations many times; each time you stick your fingers in your ears and start chanting "la la la la la". If the testimony of the head of the American National Socialist Party doesn't sway you, it's hard to see what would. In other words, you'll cling to your fantasy despite any proof.

    So probably better if you stop demanding proof. You've been given it.


    Nope, it's all bullshit. I've examined all of it. Ron Paul's words vs your bullshit and the bullshit that others have tried to perpetuate for the purpose of slander:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidI can sympathize with his view of us becoming entangled in overseas conflicts, but his view on Iran is, in my opinion, completely irresponsible. He correctly notes our acceptance of Pakistan and India having nuclear weapons, but making the equivalency with Iran is absurd. In addition to being a major supporter of terrorism, which could include providing terrorists with nuclear devices, Iran has stated their intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Coming from zealots, that warning must be taken seriously. While he was never a serious contender, I think his views on Iran completely disqualify him from any serious consideration or respect.


    "Leave NORTH KOREA Alone!" is also Ron Paul's slogan. He's not just for leaving Iran to their own honor system on whether they'll develop nuclear weapons.

    Ron Paul has one very SIMPLE...and consistent philosophy......which of course is why he is so appealing.

    'IGNORE THE REST OF THE WORLD'-----no exceptions. His supporters seem only to hear "LEAVE AFGHANISTAN NOW" and they aren't hearing the rest of his message.

    Ron Paul wants to ignore history....and to ignore our place in it.

    Ron Paul has got some good ideas(like leaving Iraq and Afghanistan) and he's taken them to absurd extremes.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Aug 16, 2011 10:13 PM GMT
    I couldn't vote for someone who calls for so much de-regulation. As actively as there are companies who introduce negative externalities into our environment and other systems, I want a force of government to equally work against those.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:13 PM GMT
    PresentMind said
    socalfitness saidI can sympathize with his view of us becoming entangled in overseas conflicts, but his view on Iran is, in my opinion, completely irresponsible. He correctly notes our acceptance of Pakistan and India having nuclear weapons, but making the equivalency with Iran is absurd. In addition to being a major supporter of terrorism, which could include providing terrorists with nuclear devices, Iran has stated their intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Coming from zealots, that warning must be taken seriously. While he was never a serious contender, I think his views on Iran completely disqualify him from any serious consideration or respect.


    "Leave NORTH KOREA Alone!" is also Ron Paul's slogan. He's not just for leaving Iran to their own honor system on whether they'll develop nuclear weapons.

    Ron Paul has one very SIMPLE...and consistent philosophy......which of course is why he is so appealing.

    'IGNORE THE REST OF THE WORLD'-----no exceptions. His supporters seem only to hear "LEAVE AFGHANISTAN NOW" and they aren't hearing the rest of his message.

    Ron Paul wants to ignore history....and to ignore our place in it.

    Ron Paul has got some good ideas(like leaving Iraq and Afghanistan) and he's taken them to absurd extremes.


    No, he believes in focusing on our country first instead of policing the whole world. You can't help others if you don't focus on helping yourself first.

    He's not saying to ignore the world he's saying to stop meddling in everyone's affairs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 11:42 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    PresentMind said
    socalfitness saidI can sympathize with his view of us becoming entangled in overseas conflicts, but his view on Iran is, in my opinion, completely irresponsible. He correctly notes our acceptance of Pakistan and India having nuclear weapons, but making the equivalency with Iran is absurd. In addition to being a major supporter of terrorism, which could include providing terrorists with nuclear devices, Iran has stated their intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Coming from zealots, that warning must be taken seriously. While he was never a serious contender, I think his views on Iran completely disqualify him from any serious consideration or respect.


    "Leave NORTH KOREA Alone!" is also Ron Paul's slogan. He's not just for leaving Iran to their own honor system on whether they'll develop nuclear weapons.

    Ron Paul has one very SIMPLE...and consistent philosophy......which of course is why he is so appealing.

    'IGNORE THE REST OF THE WORLD'-----no exceptions. His supporters seem only to hear "LEAVE AFGHANISTAN NOW" and they aren't hearing the rest of his message.

    Ron Paul wants to ignore history....and to ignore our place in it.

    Ron Paul has got some good ideas(like leaving Iraq and Afghanistan) and he's taken them to absurd extremes.


    No, he believes in focusing on our country first instead of policing the whole world. You can't help others if you don't focus on helping yourself first.

    He's not saying to ignore the world he's saying to stop meddling in everyone's affairs.

    Including Iran. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2011 12:55 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    This speaks for itself.

    Here's a black Ron Paul supporter:



    It's like you are incapable of understanding what anyone else here is saying...