The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Ron Paul Thread
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, Ron Paul - the candidate on which there seems to be NO middle ground. You either love him, or you hate him. Whether it's his pledge to get the US out of Iraq, his opposition to the IRS and the Federal Reserve, his opinions on the Constitution, or a number of other topics, it seems that everyone has an opinion. So, in order to keep the discourse civil (and to keep the crazy that it engenders contained), this thread is for you.
For those of you new to the party, here are some of his major planks:
- Curtail the US military presence abroad - this means not only out of Iraq, but also scaling down or removing completely our presence overseas.
- Reform the US governmental financial structure - abolish the IRS, end the Federal Reserve, and put our money back on a commodity backing.
- Curtail Federal influence in many arenas of government, devolving the responsibility to the states.
So, if you love him, show us why. If you hate him, prove why he's crazy. Just be ready to back up your stances...
This thread was approved by the mod staff. If you want to talk Ron Paul, do it here. If you want to talk Libertarianism, do it here. If you want to talk anything else, find another thread.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
First off, let's show exhibit A:
The man on the left is, of course, Paul himself. It's the people he's with that are more interesting - the man in the middle is Don Black, proprietor of white nationalist website Stormfront (I'm not linking to them, you go find that cesspool yourself,) and proud Ron Paul donor.
Suffice it to say that you're probably not going to find Black in any photo ops with Obama or Huckabee. So why Paul? Well, it seems that he has a history of pandering to the extremist right. Recently, The New Republic ran an expose on this shady past. What made this article different, however, was that the author also provided scans of the newsletters in question. Paul's claims of lack of involvement ring hollow, especially when the publisher of said newsletter is a member of his staff.
But beyond that, his policies will be bad for the US. There's a reason that the world has eschewed commodity-backed currency - it's just not flexible enough in today's society. Much of his opposition to the IRS and the Fed are based in extremist fantasies (which further explains his attraction to those groups). While he claims to support the Constitution, he has publically opposed the Fourteenth Amendment. Many of his interpretations of amendments are unorthodox, to say the least.
To be honest, I can't see how people could support him - he's pretty much out in Cuckooland.
I wouldn't want to see the man elected, but he's great in the debates because he often makes sense on some issues where the Republican party line starts to wonder off in bizarre directions. Look at Iraq, the Patriot Act, and Real ID for example. If I could vote for him, I wouldn't, but I am glad he's running.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Good god why do we need to keep debating about him?
Oh abortion thread at 27 pages, how you disappoint me...
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
One, I don't see what's so controversial about the above statement, and two, this is a mod approved gulagH^H^H^H^H^ thread, so quit assassinating it.
He's like a real human being actually running for President.
The downside of this policy of hanging out with actual voters without subjecting them to a background check and cavity search is that self-righteous liberals will take the pictures out of context and post them all over the internet.
well duh... and those sheets are just from that time he dressed up like a ghost.
Those newsletters wouldn't destroy any candidate's chances of winning in the primaries, just poor ol' Ron Paul. If the same allegations and the same evidence were posted, but the name was changed to Hillary/McCain/Edwards their campaigns would surely not crash down and burn before the ink on the first expose dries.
How is the weather up on that cross, guys?
There's no weather when your cross is on fire.
Probably because of that The New Republic article on them recently. NPR also mentioned those letters yesterday (I think they interviewed the guy that wrote the TNR article, but I'm not certain).
I inquired about the horribly racist newsletter.
Rondroid: He wasn't working on that at the time those things were published, and many of them were taken out of context.
I inquired about the ones from multiple years, notably the ones from the 80's that were gaybashing.
Rondroid: err... It's the... err...
I asked why we should allow states to run their own education when shit like Arkansas would happen unchecked.
Rondroid: It's not the fed's responsibility.
"Why not?"
Rondroid: Because it's not.
"I think we're done here, dumbshit."
And I walked out. The shopkeeper no longer supports Ron Paul, and I think I scared one of the other people there away from him as well, after talking with them outside.
They just see a "little" guy going up agaisnt the Republican Status Quo and are all for them.
Not really. Zit-faced little white boy twits get all hard for anybody that says anything about bringing down the IRS or the fed.
In short, I see tons of condemnation over the 'we're better than them races' attitude that (allegedly) belongs to RP supporters. I see the exact same thing (but with included classism) going on here from a lot of the anti-RP'ers.
I find the dichotomy kind of unsettling.
Bravo, sir.
maybe I'm naive, but I have yet to notice anything like that
Can you give some examples, Organichu?
I was going to ask why he's apparently strongly in favour of the Patriot Act and Real ID, but this is the Ron Paul thread, not the Past and Future Fuckups of the US Government thread. Actually, that would make for an awesome thread. I could start with the DMCA, but I digress...
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Paul's objection isn't necessarily to those things, but to the passing of laws on a federal level at all. That's why the man is crazy. It's not what he objects to, it's why.
No one else has noticed this in the previous two threads? It's already been mentioned in this iteration of the thread, and we're still on the first page.
Can you elaborate without playing the part of a persecuted white male?
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
This one is my favorite:
Yes, the site is biased. No, the Library of Congress is not:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:
Nope. My personal experience with racism and sexism isn't really relevant in this thread; though, if what you're driving at is that any complaints I might have about racism against me would be fruitless, you'd be wrong. I've been hospitalized multiple times as a result of the color of my skin. That's not what my post was about, though.
What is there to elaborate on? I made an observation: that there are some pretty scathing judgments about 'white males' in relation to their political affiliation. A common link I've seen in the arguments of many people on this board against Ron Paul is a condemnation against racism and classism and other 'isms; I think that's great. Any politician who wants to lead my country and doesn't want to protect the rights of all its citizens can go fuck him/herself. I'm glad we are in agreement of this.
I just see that sentiment put to the test in some of these threads. I don't think these comments would slip through if we said "it's a bunch of chicken-eating ghetto motherfuckers voting for Obama." That'd be fucked up- just like this.
Look man, it's not like we're saying just because somebody is a young white male means they'll support Ron Paul. The assertion is that Ron Paul supporters are more likely to be young white males. There's a big, big difference between those two claims.
Oh yeah, I've got no problem with the casual observation that one racial/economic group shares a view disproportionate to a general population. That'd be allowing political correctness to meld slowly but surely into stupidity. A lot of women vote for Hillary. If women get mad at me for saying that, well... that'd be pretty goddamned silly of them.
I'm talking about the wry incisiveness of the observations. "Pimply ass white teens", "of course these white, well-off folk would buy into RP, they don't know what hardship is", etc. etc. There seems to be some genuine malice there. I have no problem with the observation that young black males will flock to the progress and hope offered by Obama; I get uneasy, though, when it transforms from "yeah, I can see why young black males see a fire of hope in Obama's words. He's a figurehead for everything they expect out of the 21st century" to "those dumbass black kids are voting for the wrong reasons. Can't expect them to have their heads on straight, though, since most of 'em have Glocks in their waistbands".
It's exceptionalism.
Think he's ever heard of makeup?
I hope I articulated that correctly.
I'm not sure I follow. What about black Paul supporters? Poor Paul supporters? If only pimply white people liked Paul I could see your argument (though I'd still think "pimply ass white teens" is offensive), but his appeal is more broad than that. You can explain away (though, as I said, it's silly) the support of wealthy, young white guys- but since he has other fans not in that demographic, how do you reconcile the disparity?
Also, to clarify in case anyone thinks I'm playing the persecuted white male: Though I have some Mizrahi Jew, I look 'white'- typical cracker ;-)- and I plan on voting for Obama. I assure you that no white nationalism or anything so primordial is at play here.
For the criticism to be valid, he doesn't have to have exclusively young white male support. He just has to have predominately young white male support. I don't have to explain away a handful of outliers if he does, indeed, predominately attract that demographic over others.
I haven't disputed that the majority of his fans are middle-upper class white. My contention is:
1.) dismissal of that majority fan base because of its (alleged) foundation of ignorance and economic blindness. I mean, it's entirely possible that those young, middle-upper class white males know an exceptionally unusual amount about economics and that's why they vote Paul
2.) Way more importantly: the tone taken in these criticisms. Like I said, I have no problem with "it's a shame that so many college students go for Paul... those votes could go to a good candidate". It's "those fucking Ivory Tower white students sitting in their single room dorms at Ivy Leagues and voting without understanding that everything isn't so pretty for minorities" comments like <--- that which trouble me.
I fail to understand how there's any difference at all between "and of course these twitty, upper class whities go for Paul... why expect more out of Mr. I-drove-a-Beamer-at-14" and "and of course these ghetto, black ass teens go for Obama". If the accusations are true (that a.) upper class white males vote for Paul because they don't understand the economics of the destitute and b.) lower class black males vote for Obama because they see goodness just by way of his skin and promises of minority empowerment) then these would both be very, very similar statements.
I think one would get the everloving fuck flamed out of the person who spoke it, though. The other would go under the radar.