Dear Ron Paul Supporters

[La Lioness Priyanka]

I know a lot of us here are disappointed in Obama. However, no matter how disappointed we are we will NOT vote for Ron Paul.

So stop spamming our board.

We may not be united on much, but we are NEVER going to vote for Ron Paul

[Cerridwen]

1. Recommend and Kick

bat-shit presented with a 'reasonable' facade is still...bat-shit.

[pocoloco]

90. The dumb fucks want to preserve the Constitution!!

How fucking quaint!!

[Martin Eden]

149. And eliminate the EPA! And dismantle the social safety net!

Yep, dumbfucks is quite apt!!

[kenfrequed]

155. Feh

They want to consecrate a pre New-deal vision of the constitution as being the holy word of Ron Paul. They want to dismantle social safety nets, demolish social security, and return to a 'states rights' concept that has always caused unequal human rights.

How very humane, and how very democratic.

His supporters think that since we are frustrated that the president has conceded too much to the ultra-right insane wing of the republican party that we are going to vote for a friggin republican?

Ron Paul people are obviously needing to increase their meds.

[pnwmom]

173. Especially the part about a black man being worth 3/5 of a white man

and a woman getting no vote at all.

[Kahuna]

209. They want the freedom to get high. nt

[MilesColtrane]

2. They are nothing but a bunch of also-Rands.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. LOL.

[fishwax]

20. tee hee

[MADem]

70. +1. nt

[Bucky]

81. And you don't have to be an Aynstein to figure that out.

[Richardo]

82. +100

[HappyMe]

91. DUzy material.

[freshwest]

157. Tee hee right back at you:

Account status: Posting privileges revoked
Member since: Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:42 AM
Number of posts: 12
Last post: Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:39 AM

Like moths to the flame, bye.

[green917]

163. LOL

Well played Miles!

[Ohio Joe]

3. K&R - nt

[FarLeftFist]

4. FOR REAL!

[Zalatix]

5. K&R! And here is why we will NOT vote for Ron Paul

Any time Ron Paul'ers show up, show them the facts. Show the world the Ron Paul's corporate statist voting record.

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/

Requires Public Disclosure of Bonuses and Golden Parachute Arrangements Amendment Adopted - Ron Paul voted NAY

Requires Crowdfunding Intermediaries to Disclose Methods of Compensation to Investors Amendment - Ron Paul voted NAY

Delays EPA Emissions Regulations for Cement Manufacturers - Ron Paul voted Yea

Repealing Provisions Limiting Funding For Endangered Species Act - Ron Paul voted NAY

Repealing the Health Care Bill - RON PAUL VOTED YEA

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act - RON PAUL VOTED NAY!!!

Mine Safety Act - Ron Paul voted NAY

Extension of Certain Unemployment Benefits Bill Failed - Ron Paul voted NAY

Infant Mortality Pilot Programs - NAY

Aid To States for Medicaid, Teacher Employment, and Other Purposes - Nay

"Whistleblower Protection" for Offshore Oil Workers - NAY

Offshore Drilling Regulations and Other Energy Law Amendments - Nay

Unemployment Benefits Extension Concurrence Vote - Nay

Flood Insurance Program Extension - NAY

Temporary Tariff Suspensions and Reductions? Ron Paul voted YEA on this.

Edited: And here's a REAL doozy:
Oct. 9, 1998 HR 3150 Bankruptcy Reform bill Conference Report Adopted - House
(300 - 125) - Ron Paul voted YEA

[DonCoquixote]

13. If this board has stickies

Or any other way to memorialize replies I would nominate it.

[Mojorabbit]

18. I agree but cause it doesn't it needs to be reposted often. nt

[Zalatix]

74. I have an anti-Ron Paul thread that needs more K&R right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100238399

[stevenleser]

261. Done/Recced! nt

[freshwest]

159. +1,000

[Bluzmann57]

181. Thanks for posting this

There is a local alternative paper in this area run by a couple of righties which just published a couple of articles about why Paul should be elected. I intend to point out these facts to these people and all others who are caught up in ron paul mania. It likely won't shut them up, but it may at least make someone think.

[Sky Masterson]

6. I'll second that

[SunsetDreams]

7. K&R I sure have seen quite a few Ron Paul threads today

[glinda]

58. Trolls promoting him perhaps?

[SidDithers]

77. Agree, and your post just got alerted...

I'll post jury results when they come in.

ETA results of jury service.

At Tue Dec 20, 2011, 07:57 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Trolls promoting him perhaps?

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

It is an inappropriate smear to claim that DUers who are discussing Ron Paul is likely to win in Iowa are somehow "trolls". Paul's appeal to Dems and independents needs to be addressed seriously, and not that anyone engaging in that discussion is a "troll".

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:06 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The remark is posed as a question ... and a fairly innocuous one at that.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's against DU rules to promote Republicans. Therefore, anyone promoting Paul would be trolling.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster is expressing a speculative opinion. Nothing wrong there.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post addressed trolls who may be promoting Ron Paul's nomination. The poster does not seem to be claiming that all DUers are trolls simply because they are discussing his likelihood to win.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Anyone promoting Ron Paul at DU is the very definition of a troll. Post is fine.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Its okay to wonder why there is an influx of Ron Paul support.
Its a general statement.
If poster had called a particular DUer a troll, I might have voted to hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.



Sid

[siligut]

89. Thank you for posting the jury results - You did good.

It would be interestiing to see all of the alerts and jury results.

[yardwork]

154. A unanimous "leave it alone." Trolls take note.

[freshwest]

162. Yes, they are definitely abusing the alert system, and the boards.

[glinda]

241. Thanks for telling me. The jurors understood. Surprised I had to be juried. wow.

[City Lights]

8. Well said!

[sharp_stick]

10. I must not have been paying attention

today, I missed them.

I'd think that supporting that little garden gnome would be a tombstoning offence, at least it should be.

[one_voice]

11. garden gnome...

[ellisonz]

66. Hold up.

It could replace the tombstone...as in the poster has been "garden gnomed" - we've got a fair deal of artists here.



Eh, eh, eh

[one_voice]

117. LOLOLOL...

Perfect...should put this in the help and meta section and suggest it to Skinner...too funny!!!

[freshwest]

165. Nah, no way, just put a Pixie Paul pic there.

As reasoning with Paulbots fails to get through their cult mentality, words are pointless. A symbol might show them that we are not buying their rightwing, libertarian corporatist sales job here.

[SidDithers]

14. "I'm sick and tired of hearing that Ron Paul is a racist"...

That's an actual quote from a juror who voted on whether to leave or hide a post from a Ron Paul supporter earlier today. Not all Paulites are noob infiltrators, apparently.

Sid

[sharp_stick]

16. They may not all be noobs

but they are all simpletons.

[tblue]

24. You may be tired of it

but is it not true?

[SidDithers]

33. It's not something that I said...

Please try to keep up.

Sid

[tblue]

192. Oh excuse me.

I missed the quotes reading this on my phone. I'll remember you, Sid.

[frazzled]

179. Yikes

I'll keep that in mind the first time I get "juried" on a post, and won't feel too bad if I'm hidden.

Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that there might be some non-infiltrator Paul supporters here. It's really sad, though. Now I really have to wonder at the motives of some.

[CreekDog]

215. noobs or moobs?

there are arguments for both.

[MH1]

15. so sorry you had to leave so soon, beady one.

[tblue]

22. Wait. What?

You like him why?

[tblue]

23. Wow. Poof! and the post I replied to was gone!

The Jury does not mess around.

Did that person really try to get us to vote for Ron Paul?!

[sharp_stick]

27. The thing that surprises me

is that there were two people on that jury that voted to let that Ron Paul shit stick around. I'd like to know who they were, they didn't have the grapes to leave a reason.

[BootinUp]

31. me too. nt

[tblue]

32. Does somebody not know he's a REPUBLICAN?

I don't get it.

[MADem]

72. Well, the admins know.

They may allow 'em a pass for being "nuanced," but they've put themselves on report, essentially.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. I recognize the name. I think I alerted on 1 or 2 of its turds.

I predict that we won't have it to kick around much longer.

[blm]

100. good

.

[Jackpine Radical]

132. If you mistake this place for an echo chamber, you're not paying attention.

It's just that we get kinda tired of the same specious crap being flung around time after time, absorbing bandwidth for no good reason. Up through maybe the 150th time, it's kinda amusing to point out why, although Paul has a couple of positions (drugs, foreign policy) that resonate fairly well here, the rest of his toybag is toxic. But somewhere between the 150th and the 1000th rerun, my patience wears thin.

[PeaceNikki]

133. This thread is like a flytrap, huh?

[Jackpine Radical]

180. Indeed. If ya wanna gather them all in one place, this technique sure works.

Then ya gotta kinda walk in & club 'em like baby seals.

[Capn Sunshine]

185. funny how the usual flies show up

[MedicalAdmin]

125. It puts the lotion on....

... or it gets the hose...

[528 hz]

258. Hmmm...

Very interesting. Now that you can silence anything but the echo chamber, has your life improved? Is Congress serving your needs, Republicans AND Dems? Or it is just a popularity contest above all else?

[stevenleser]

260. Anybody who spends more than 1 second on DU and comes away with the idea that we all agree on things

or that DU is an echochamber is either an idiot, functionally illiterate, or both.

[Texasgal]

17. Godammit! WORD sista!

Jesus, these Ron Paul fans are f'ing CRAZY!!!

K&R

[abelenkpe]

35. That is putting it mildly

They are scary

[freshstart]

40. And not too bright!

Just ask them to go look up Doug Bandow, who is on Ron Paul's campaign.

Bandow....that wrote op-eds favorable to Jack Abramoff to influence congress for cash.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

Maybe they need to look up Jack Abramoff to understand the problem.

See them here cheering the addition of Bandow to Ron Paul's campain?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?108392-Ron-Paul-Campaign-Announces-Addition-of-New-Policy-Advisors

They obviously spend little time checking into their candidate or his associates.

[unkachuck]

19. "...but we are NEVER going to vote for Ron Paul"

....I completely agree....

[tblue]

21. I haven't seen that spam, but HELL NO to Ron Paul!

Somebody here is promoting Racist Scroogey Ron Paul? Ugh!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. With his bigoted ass! No way in hell!!!!

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Well I think I can agree with this post

WHOLEHEARTEDLY! Fuck a bunch of Ron Paul. Libertarian idiots.

[dotymed]

88. IMO, the gimmick is

that Ron Paul espouses a couple of progressive goals. I am sure that they are a candidate thing. The rest of his proposals are to the right of the tea party.
We need a 1%er running in every election. "Our" rules make that impossible. You have to have million$ to even run for office.
Is there anyone who disagrees with publicly financed elections that is not in the top 5% of the wealthy?

[socialist_n_TN]

92. "I am sure they are a candidate thing." Yep.....

The issues benefitting the 1% would be pushed for adoption ASAP while ending the drug prohibition and the foreign policy overreach would ALWAYS be "next year". Ron Paul is just another con job by the capitalists.

[TBF]

141. I know, right ...

with Paul you have to look beyond the initial soundbites and realize the man wants to pay for nothing - as little government as possible. That means capitalists will have more free reign than today if that's even possible. No thank you.

[freshwest]

166. The Paul bots don't think that far ahead.

[Lisa0825]

28. They're about as bad as LaRouchies. nt

[Muskypundit]

30. Ugh.

Just...... Ugh. Thanks for reminding me of their existence lol

[Kennah]

50. Yeah, but the LaRouchies are too fucking clueless to accomplish anything

Randian Paulites got their Sainted One's Sonny Boy into the U.S. Senate.

[derby378]

29. Amen to that

I mean, seriously, people? Wake the hell up.

[abelenkpe]

34. +1000 nt

[Matariki]

36. You tell it!

Although I do kind of hope Paul wins the republican primary.

[TalkingDog]

37. I don't. I hope he whips up enough interest to run as an Independent or Libertarian

He'll take more votes from the Republicans than he ever would from the Dems.

[Matariki]

54. Yes, that might be even better.

The thing I don't like is that all of the other GOP candidates will keep the general election debates (and consequently the national dialog) on the absolutely most trivial "culture war" crap. The only advantage of Paul is what the issues will be about. If he becomes the actual GOP candidate the media will be unable to marginalize him.

I'd like to see some mainstream, election season discussion of the war(s), the Patriot Act, NDAA and so forth.

[Galraedia]

216. That's not going to happen

Ron Paul and the Republicans know that he'd take votes away from the Republican nominee if he ran as a third-party, which is why he won't.

[TalkingDog]

217. a plebe can dream.....

n/t

[mikekohr]

38. In our guts, we know he's nuts. Really. really nuts.

[Jackpine Radical]

44. That one works better on Paul than it ever did on Goldwater in '64.

Well, except for Goldwater's threats about using nukes in SE Asia. That was pretty nuts.

[T S Justly]

39. K&R

[Lefta Dissenter]

41. thank you.

[webDude]

43. So, we're a bunch of close-minded spoiled brats that say they cannot ...

...learn anything from people that they think they know and hate? Jeesh, for one, he wants to do away with the Federal Reserve Bank, you know, that is owned by the IMF, and a act that the OWS crowd can whole-heartedly agree with.

Let us not act like what we say the Republicans act like.

[FarLeftFist]

45. We all know Ron Paul. Nothing to learn. Just a crazy old man.

[Kennah]

51. Stopped clocks and all

[socialist_n_TN]

93. Blind pigs and acorns

[NYC Liberal]

53. There are DEMOCRATS who support all those things,

plus other LIBERAL positions.

We don't need to support a far right-wing crack pot who happens to be right on one or two issues, when there are plenty of liberal Democrats who are right on so many more.

[SixthSense]

85. Please name them

I got Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders on the list... if you have any other names I would like to hear them.

[Ratty]

116. Nobody is saying the Democrats in general are as progressive as we might like

But you just named two yourself right there. So why do we have to hear about Paul all the time?

[SixthSense]

127. because those two are not running for President

and they both said they would not run, so the question is not open with either one. Same goes for Feingold.

Where are the progressive leaders when we need them? Why is no one stepping up to the plate?

We hear about Ron Paul all the time because he could well be fatal to the Democratic party. If it is a Republican who gives us an end to endless global warmaking, legalized pot, and takes down the banker oligarchy, where does that leave us?

[Ratty]

150. Oh no. Not the list

If it is a Republican who gives us an end to endless global warmaking, legalized pot, and takes down the banker oligarchy, where does that leave us?

I told myself I wouldn't post The List again, but oh well.

See, the thing is this republican would also give us this:

Ron Paul:
1. Would eliminate Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Health and Human Services, FEMA, and the IRS.
2. Would eliminate all income tax.
3. Does not believe in separation of church and state.
4. Believes states should be able to outlaw flag burning.
5. Supports DOMA.
6. Criticized Lawrence v Texas.
7. Rabidly pro-life, sponsored Sanctity of Life Act among other legislation aimed at banning abortion.
8. Is a climate change denier.
9. Opposes the voting rights act.
10. Opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Separate drinking fountains and lunch counters are A-OK with him if that's what individual states want to do.
11. Opposes any limits on campaign contributions.

So tell me again, candidate or not, why are we talking about Paul?

[SixthSense]

177. This is why

The vast majority of this country doesn't want another war. The only person opposing new wars in the Presidential race is Ron Paul.

The vast majority of this country wants to break the banker stranglehold on the economy and government. The only one promoting a policy that would do this is Ron Paul.

A solid majority wants legal MJ. The only person proposing this is Ron Paul.

etc.

That's why people are talking about Ron Paul, they care about these issues and his is the only name connected with them. Which is a damn shame, these should ALL be Democratic Party core issues in the year 2011.

[LeftishBrit]

67. We cannot learn anything from people who consider that welfare is theft, and that just because

people need healthcare doesnt mean that they are entitled to have it; no.

Read Paul's speech 'A Republic if You Can Keep It' and then say if he is someone that one can learn anything from!

As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, the way I understand it is that progressives would like to replace it with more direct and effective government regulation, and Paul would like to replace it with no regulation at all. So Paul and OWS types oppose the Federal Reserve for totally opposite reasons.

[redqueen]

118. More regulation vs. no regulation.

Thank you! This is the kind of very simple logic of which Paulbots are apparently incapable.

[Charlemagne]

191. Yeppers. Didnt no regulation

cause the financial crisis. Im pretty sure the lack of regulation and oversight were the culprits behind the derivative fun-time and all the other 'solid financial products.' Well, that and bureaucratic capture (which is essentially deregulation in itself).


So deregulating stuff is like throwing a can of gas to put out a fire.

[freshstart]

83. Hmmmmm,

I'm not so sure that I buy anything that Ron Paul says about the Federal Reserve.

He and the Conservative Caucus are closely tied to conservative funder Nelson Bunker Hunt. There was this issue with silver in the 80s when the Fed was playing along with his friends:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UtUcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yF0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1343,958398&dq=nelson+bunker+hunt+saudi+silver&hl=en

[green917]

167. and...

He also wants to abolish the Department of Education, The Environmental Protection Agency, The Food and Drug Administration, and every other regulatory agency we have looking out for consumers and citizens alike.

Aside from the fact that he's a Republican (the promotion of which is not allowed at DU), he's the ultimate candidate for the 1%. His voting record is chock full of votes supporting big business and the 1%. He may get it right on a couple of issues (the Fed, certain aspects of our foreign policy) but, overall he's crazy as a shit house rat and would be a disaster for this country in any higher office (even in a cabinet position). Essentially what I'm trying to say is that I had a busted watch once and it was right twice a day...doesn't mean I want to rely on it to schedule my day. The Government that Ron Paul wants to create already exists...it's called Somalia, and it's not a very nice place.

[Charlemagne]

193. Question, not an endorsement

Do the large financial institutions/banks like him? Because they get all sorts of goodies from the Fed. If not, is that why he has had to fight over the decade (or whatever) to get into debates an so forth?

Thanks much.

[freshstart]

230. I guess because of Citizens United

which Ron Paul was a plaintiff on the side of Citizens United, you'll never know the extent of which they do.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/projects/campaignfinance/collection/paul/paul.11.6.pdf

[green917]

238. That's a very valid question

And I would guess that the banks don't like him much and are probably scared of him being any sort of viable candidate (which I don't believe he really is) because of his stance on the Fed but that very well may have contributed to him having trouble garnering recognition (debate inclusion, etc.).

[musette_sf]

170. Ah, yes, the tired old Libertarian saw of

"if only you weren't so closed-minded, you'd get over your narrow-minded Statist views and support Ron Paul".

accompanied by the same old refrain of

"So YOU know EVERYTHING and there's NOTHING you can learn (rolls eyes)."

Heard it a million times. To Libertarians, if you don't agree with them, you are (1) closed minded, (2) ignorant - "if only you UNDERSTOOD, you'd AGREE".

To Libertarians, no one has a fully formed and informed opinion, except other Libertarians.

[Charlemagne]

195. exactly....

and when you explain the bad part to them, they think that somehow it wont happen. That everything could be perfect if only X, X, and X were true.

That or they say they own guns and are ready for the revolution....ive heard that before.

[HughBeaumont]

212. Why do so many libertarians use the word "Statist"?

It's like "Do you WANT this dialogue to end before it begins? Red-baiting is a short-cut to thinking."

Many of them fall under numbers 4, 6, 10 and 14 . . ..

[pnwmom]

174. No reason to learn anything from racists and misogynists.

There are plenty of other Rethugs out there.

[mrs_p]

46. Wait, what I miss?

I've been working all day and have seen several posts refer to the infiltrators.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. actually there have been several single-digit posters pushing Ron Paul in the past 24-48 hours

Of course most get zapped. But I suspect with Paul currently leading in Iowa his devotees feel quite emboldened these days.

[GoCubsGo]

73. Some of them are the same person.

One came back twice after being tombstoned last night. They ARE persistent--to the point of being terribly annoying. Most cultists are like that.

[MisterP]

47. Birchers + Heaven's Gate + Ezra Pound's conspiracies + wannabe Perot

[ellisonz]

48. For real.

Ron Paul is nuts.

[slay]

49. As much as I admire Paul's stance on ending the Drug War and bringing all troops home

he's still too crazy in many other ways. We need someone to the left of Obama - not the right.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. yeah. thats the reason ron paul is not the solution

yes, we bicker about obama but because we think he has moved to the right. so electing someone to the right of obama would hardly fix our gripes

[Major Hogwash]

52. Thank you.

This was appropriate and timely.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. welcome

[paulkienitz]

57. We might vote for him in a primary... that can only add to the fun.

I mean, at least he's principled on _half_ of the issues.

[Charlemagne]

198. I have friends who say that too

The only issue I have is that it will increase the national dialogue regarding ending alllllll federal oversight.

But I see your point.

[urbuddha]

60. Paul wants to hurt Americans ! He's horrible !!!

Never, ever, would I vote for Ron Paul !
[img][/img]

[spooked911]

76. don't think he *wants* to-- that is your spin.

His policies would hurt people, but that is not how he would see it.

[paulkienitz]

164. Ron Paul is a True Believer in a strange faith

and as such, his belief of what would happen doesn't match reality, so none of the harm would have been intentional.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. I can understand how a young person could be taken in by Ron Paul

Anyone under the age of 43 was not alive the last time there was a liberal President in the White House. Anyone under the age of 39 was not alive when the Democratic Party last nominated a progressive candidate. Thus the whole liberal/progressive message has been so pushed outside the mainstream - it is a wonder that there are any liberals and progressives left. Ron Paul is interesting to listen to. He is in a sense visionary and even somewhat utopian. Some of his ideas do make sense and where he does make sense - he makes more sense than the leadership of either major party. But his assumptions about how government is the fault for all of social ills - is reactionary beyond reactionary levels. His policies would ultimately create a raw law of the jungle beyond the current depraved levels that are the natural consequences of a society where the liberal class is all but dead. A false idealism can be more appealing than no idealism at all.

[redqueen]

121. "he makes more sense than the leadership of either major party"

On one or two issues. As long as you don't care about anything else, then I guess that's ok.

[TBF]

146. I agree with that assessment

I am just old enough to remember the last liberal president - who was demonized and replaced with Ronald Reagan. It has been downhill since then, and voting for Ron Paul takes you right off the cliff. The only way one can advocate that is if you seriously want things to crash so you can start over - and as far as I'm concerned too many get hurt in the process.

I don't buy this talk of OWS wanting Paul though - I think these creatures also tried to infiltrate there but long-term leftist activists are not going to be fooled by his nonsense. So now they are trying to infiltrate here. It's not working.

[Charlemagne]

199. Some of my friends back in the day (im 29....Yikes)

Liked Paul because their big concern was weed and smoking it without the 5-0 halting the fun. That was generally the extent of their concerns. Other stuff they were solid republicans. But they just wanted to smoke it up and make it legal.

Not that I disagree with that. But any of this Randian bullshit would unleash absolute hell upon the earth.


Do people really think that once the rich form their monopolies that they wont form a dictatorship ala SudAmerika?!?!

[Hart2008]

223. Do people really think that once the rich form their monopolies that they wont form a dictatorship..

"Do people really think that once the rich form their monopolies that they wont form a dictatorship ala SudAmerika?!?!"

The rich have already formed their monopolies here and internationally.

Yes, our government does resemble a dictatorship with its lack of civil liberties. It really depends on how you want to define "dictatorship". If the faces in government change, but the corporatist policies and neoimperialist military interventionism continue, people tend not to notice since it gives the appearance of democracy.

[JDPriestly]

62. Ron Paul will never get my vote.

I agree with him on a couple of issues and disagree with him on a multitude of issues -- the most important ones in my view -- like regulation of businesses, like enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and a host of other programs.

[HughBeaumont]

64. Shitty on women's rights, shittier on LGBT rights, economic Reaganite Darwinian to the core . . .

Anti-Choice . . .

Yeah, fuck that guy.

My preference is a Sherrod Brown/Elizabeth Warren Democratic progressive. While President Obama may not be that, the solution sure as hell isn't going to be voting for an Rayn And disciple (thereby giving the presidency to the likes of GinGrinch or Willard) instead.

[Norrin Radd]

65. kr

[fasttense]

68. Anyone stupid enough to admit to following a psychopath like Ayn Rand wil Never, Ever get my vote.n/

[steve2470]

69. Amen ! nt

[Mr Dixon]

71. Agreed

keep this going

[PeaceNikki]

79. Ron Paul is certainly no advocate of civil liberties for women, homosexuals or minorities.

Anyone who thinks he is an advocate of civil liberties must be a Christian white man unconcerned with the civil liberties of anyone but themselves.

[redqueen]

123. "Anyone who thinks he is an advocate of civil liberties...

must be a Christian white man unconcerned with the civil liberties of anyone but themselves."

[Charlemagne]

201. Hmm.....

"Anyone who thinks he is an advocate of civil liberties must be a Christian white man unconcerned with the civil liberties of anyone but themselves."

Sooooo, they must be Republicans, then?

[spooked911]

78. where is this spamming and why haven't they come to this thread?

I never saw much support for RP at DU, myself.

[PeaceNikki]

80. They've been all over the board, including a couple in this thread. Hint: they've been hidden and

nuked.

[TBF]

87. spooked911,

I live in Ron Paul's district in TX. My assessment is that he is a gentleman of yesterday - if that makes sense. He is polite, old-fashioned, and would be woefully inept at taking over a country like this. Frankly, I'd rather put it in Occupy's hands because at least we'd have younger, enthusiastic, left-leaning minds at work.

Yes we need to cut defense drastically. I have no problem with legalizing drugs (and therefore taking away the black market), and if you'd like to discuss political theory please come join me and others in the progressive socialist group. We share your disgust with NDAA and would probably find common ground on myriad other issues.

[Charlemagne]

202. Whoa!

"if you'd like to discuss political theory please come join me and others in the progressive socialist group. "

Where is said group? I looked through the groups on the left part of the screen and didnt find it.

[TBF]

225. It's under the activism group -

hopefully this link will bring you to us: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024

[Romulox]

94. Exactly. OP = 100% Straw Man. nt

[PeaceNikki]

97. Not if you're one of the people tasked with taking the trash out, it's not.

This board has been full of n00b Paulbots. It's been like swatting flys.

[Romulox]

98. Link or it didn't happen. nt

[PeaceNikki]

99. There are three posts hidden right here in this thread.

And I won't link to the massive intrusion threads that were started last night that prompted this OP, but a serial disrupter created several accounts and was banned several times last night. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. A lot of people did see it. Especially those receiving alerts.

[TBF]

148. It happened -

worse last night but we've had a few today. Most of the juries have been knocking out the posts of these obvious trolls - and that in and of itself is telling because I've been on more than a dozen juries and folks are tending to let things stand on DU3 unless they are very obvious infractions.

[Charlemagne]

204. Dude, you mad bro

I admire questioning the thesis, I do that all the time, but there have been several threads like "my democrat friend said she would would for Paul," "my liberal son likes Ron Paul," and "OWS members tweet that they like Paul."

So, is it just an observation that third parties are liking Paul, or is it people who like Paul that are planting seeds of discontent here?

One of the tricks in polling is to ask someone 'what their neighbor thinks.' Because if the person holds a controversial issue, and is afraid to say it, they may be willing to reveal it by stating their neighbor holds those values. Thats a trick to find out about racial bias among voters.

That being said, the worry here is that our liberal friends were disenchanted with Obama (and maybe rightfully) and were trying to get support for Paul by saying their "friend" or "son" or "OWS" likes him.

You can look up the threads on the search thing in the top right. Or if you get all pissed about it (take that in jest) I can do it for you. But Id rather not because I gots to get this syllabus done.

word

[La Lioness Priyanka]

240. lol

[ProfessionalLeftist]

84. Ditto that. The man is a lunatic. It just ain't gonna happen. n/t

[guitar man]

86. Amen

He may make a few of the right noises on some civil rights issues but he's a bigot and he has the mind of a simple child when it comes to economics. No way in hell I'd vote for him.

[Romulox]

95. A LOT of people support the Status Quo, so of course it's threatening to see it disrupted. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

101. i dont think RP threatens the status quo at all

i think elizabeth warren might but not RP

[PeaceNikki]

102. Ron Paul *is* the status quo in sheep's clothing. He is a Republican tool.

[Romulox]

108. I don't think so. I think Obama REALLY wants to face Mitt in the GE. nt

[PeaceNikki]

110. I see. And you? It appears you'd prefer he face Paul?

[Romulox]

111. I think a Paul candidacy would force Obama to "triangulate" back to the Left on many issues.

And therefore, it would benefit the Democratic base more than a Mittens candidacy, which would offer Obama an opportunity to tack further right.

[PeaceNikki]

112. You make a point, but I digress back to the OP - Paul spammers should spew their crap elsewhere.

We aren't buying it here.

[LeftishBrit]

243. I don't see how he would

I agree that it would be better for Obama to face a liberal/moderate Republican than a right-wing one, for the reasons you mention, but none of the candidates are remotely moderate, and on economic/ welfare/ public services issues, Paul is probably the most extreme of the lot!

[Romulox]

245. On the issues of overseas war and domestic civil liberties, Paul is far to the LEFT of Obama.

Fact.

[LeftishBrit]

256. He is not pro-civil-liberties; he is anti-federal-government

Thus, if it's the federal government doing the suppression of civil liberties, he's against it. If it's a state, or a private organization, he's fine with it.

But there is a more fundamental point: in my view, if you are against social safety nets, then you are by definition also against civil liberties. Starving in the street is no better, indeed often worse, than being in prison. It is just as anti-freedom for people to be terrified to speak out, because they might lose their jobs without right of appeal, and then starve and freeze in the street, as it is for them to be terrified to speak out because they might be arrested and put in prison.

[stevenleser]

262. Exactly right. I'd much rather be in prison than jobless/homeless and starving on the street

The freedom to starve to death in a bad economy is really what Paul offers in terms of domestic issues.

In terms of foreign policy, Paul would not force Obama to go left at all. In fact, it would reinforce Obama's center left position on foreign policy because it seems much more reasonable to most people than Paul's isolationism.

[pnwmom]

175. A lot of people will never accept his racism. This is the guy who said that 95% of black men

in D.C. are criminals, among other things. For decades, he put out his racist newsletter. Now he's trying to run away from it. He's a creep.

[LeftishBrit]

242. Do you consider a social safety net, basic consumer protection, and healthcare as 'the status quo'?

I didn't think they were in the USA. In some countries they are, but are under threat.

If you want to prevent your country from getting these necessities, and increase the risk of losing them elsewhere in the world, then by all means vote for a POISONOUS SNAKE like Ron Paul.

But I hope you won't.

[Romulox]

244. I appreciate that it may look that way from Britain, but the President isn't

promising any of the things you mentioned. So between whom are you drawing a contrast?

[LeftishBrit]

257. Between having far too little of these necessities, and having them destroyed altogether

This is not really about President Obama; I would vote for him if I lived in America, but that is not the point; I have HATED all economic right-libertarians, including Ron Paul, since long before I'd even heard of Obama.

Here is Ron Paul himself, in his speech 'A Republic if You Can Keep It', which he keeps on his website:

'There was no welfare state in 1900. In the year 2000 we have a huge welfare state, which continues to grow each year. Not that special-interest legislation didn't exist in the 19th Century, but for the most part, it was limited and directed toward moneyed interests--the most egregious example being the railroads.

The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.

The acceptance of the welfare ethic and rejection of the work ethic as the accepted process for improving one's economic conditions are now ingrained in our political institutions. This process was started in earnest in the 1930s, received a big boast in the 1960s, and has continued a steady growth, even through the 1990s, despite some rhetoric in opposition. This public acceptance has occurred in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that welfare is a true help in assisting the needy. Its abject failure around the world where welfarism took the next step into socialism has even a worse record.

The transition in the past hundred years from essentially no welfare to an all-encompassing welfare state represents a major change in attitude in the United States. Along with its acceptance, the promoters have dramatically reinterpreted the Constitution from the way it had been for our first 150 years. ...With the modern-day interpretation of the general welfare clause, the principle of individual liberty and the doctrine of enumerated powers have been made meaningless. The goal of strictly limiting the power of our national government as was intended by the Constitution is impossible to achieve as long as it is acceptable for Congress to redistribute wealth in an egalitarian welfare state. There's no way that personal liberty will not suffer with every effort to expand or make the welfare state efficient. And the sad part is that the sincere efforts to help people do better economically through welfare programs always fail. Dependency replaces self-reliance while the sense of self worth of the recipient suffers, making for an angry, unhappy, and dissatisfied society. The cost in dollar terms is high, but the cost in terms of liberty is even greater, but generally ignored, and in the long run, there's nothing to show for this sacrifice.

Today, there's no serious effort to challenge welfare as a way of life, and its uncontrolled growth in the next economic downturn is to be expected. Too many citizens now believe they are "entitled" to monetary assistance from the government anytime they need it, and they expect it. Even in times of plenty, the direction has been to continue expanding education, welfare, and retirement benefits. No one asks where the government gets the money to finance the welfare state. Is it morally right to do so? Is it authorized in the Constitution? Does it help anyone in the long run? Who suffers from the policy? Until these questions are seriously asked and correctly answered, we cannot expect the march toward a pervasive welfare state to stop, and we can expect our liberties to be continuously compromised.'

You and I may agree that America does *not* have an 'all-encompassing welfare state' now. But Paul thinks that it does, and would clearly wish to tear down ALL help for those who cannot afford to help themselves; it is clear that he wants drastically to reduce 'education, welfare and retirement benefits'; and to deny that anyone has a right to healthcare.

Do you honestly think that a creature that can express such views as I've just quoted is worthy even to be considered as a member of the human race, let alone of anyone's vote?

[Stuckinthebush]

96. Why would any true progressive vote for that blowhard?

Anyone spamming that nonsense on this board is likely a troll. Ignore them.

[Blue_Tires]

103. I was saying that back in '08

this thread should be pinned to the top

[La Lioness Priyanka]

105. thanks

[Charlemagne]

205. +1

But go redwings

[PeaceNikki]

107. Like Paul, he is a Republican.

You know where you're posting this, right?

[Javaman]

106. I'm voting ru paul!!!

wait, what? oh sorry, wrong paul.

[green917]

171. That's a debate I would love to watch!

Ru Paul debating Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich would be pure comedy gold!

[musette_sf]

176. I'd like to see RuPaul debate

Marcus Bachmann

"Who wore it better?"

[green917]

178. LMAO!

Break out the popcorn!

[grantcart]

109. Being unable to type with one hand they are unable to respond.

[coalition_unwilling]

113. I would like Ron Paul to be the Repuke nominee for 2012, if only because

I think it would make for the most interesting general election possible. That in no way means I support Ron Paul for president or would ever consider voting for him in the General Election. It means I support a vigorous philosophical debate in the general election as healthy for our democracy and the republic.

I also think Obama would trounce Paul in the GE to the point where Obama's coattails might turn some red districts blue.

As a way to defuse some of the sniping about Paul, I started a thread yesterday asking DUers whom they would like to see as the Repuke nominee in 2012 and, as importantly, their reasons for their choice. I've been pleased to keep reading and responding to it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100242848

The thread has reaffirmed my sense of the political savvy of the DU readership, along with its sense of humor and overall civility. Many of the responses there have given me new ways of thinking about the question I posed.

[JoePhilly]

114. You have to be insane, or super high, to vote for Ron Paul.

[HughBeaumont]

143. I'm thinking most are of the former, especially Democratic people who like him.

Does anyone care that he's an Austrian economic school & laissez-fail advocate, two positions highly opposite of Democratic economic principles? Does anyone care that, while he'd "end the wars" he's really more concerned with gutting any sort of social safety nets that separate the 1% from the gibbetts and torches?

[saras]

152. HIgh won't do it. You want Steve Martin's "Get SMALL" drug.

[JoePhilly]

172. LOL

[redqueen]

115. K&R!!!!!!!!

I would use a million exclamation points if I could.

I wish they would STFU and go away. They need to do a lot more thinking about politics as they clearly have at best a very limited grasp of things, if they think that guy would get any traction here. Such idiocy. Ugh.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Just as Pat Buchanan was right about the damage caused by offshoring jobs

Ron Paul is right about foreign wars.

However, both of them are way off the right-wing deep end on other topics. They're perfect examples of a "even a stopped clock being right twice a day."

I'd love to see an end to interventions in foreign countries, but I'm not willing to embrace economic libertarianism and social Puritanism to achieve this.

[HughBeaumont]

147. Perfect = your last sentence.

That is, as to why no progressive should be pro-Ron Paul.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

120. By the way, I can remember 2004, when there were people spamming the board with suggestions

that Kerry pick John McCain as his running mate.

Yes, that] John McCain.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

124. i do too. it was ridic.

[Charlemagne]

207. I could see that ticket

as a way to split the vote and get Kerry in. Meh, the vote in Ohio was stolen that year anyway.

[stevenleser]

263. Yes, that isnt as bad as it sounds. The VPOTUS is a very weak position. Its a good calculation...

to better position Kerry vs Shrub, and open up a senate position in Arizona that Democrats might win.

The power of the VPOTUS really depends on what power the President gives him. In that kind of a scenario, Kerry would have controlled McCain completely.

[myrna minx]

122. K&R. He's a freak show. n/t

[Texas Lawyer]

126. I like to hear from the Paulistas for 3 main reasons.

First, Ron Paul is only dead wrong on most issues. With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, Paul has the best ratio of somewhat-acceptable-positions-to-blithering-idiot-positions among the Repub field. Contrast Paul's views against Rick Santorum's or Michele Bachmann's or Rick Perry's, and you will see Paul as a candidate who is only mostly wrong about most things and that status lifts him well above a field of candidates who are entirely wrong about the entire spectrum of issues.

Second, as the Repub primary lasts longer and becomes more contentious, more Repub vs. Repub negative ads will run and more ill will is going to be generated within the Repub party and more "oops" moments will occur and more candidates will be forced to candidly acknowledge political positions which will help them in the primary but handicap them in the general election and more Repub money will be diverted from Repub vs. Democrat races. This is all good. The continuation of Paul's candidacy helps make this all happen.

Third, Paul will do well in Iowa and New Hampshire (perhaps he wins Iowa and finishes a close second to almost-native-son Mitt Romney in New Hampshire). When that happens, the Repubs will unleash the bloody knives to "stop Paul!" in South Carolina. This political Repub-party sponsored bloodbath may confirm to Paul that he really is a third party candidate, and offering the voters Paul as a third option is also not a bad thing.

For these reasons (and others), I think the Paul campaign should be encouraged in their efforts.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

128. i like your arguments but i still think paulites should lay off du

they can go wage their war somewhere else

[PeaceNikki]

129. They can go sell their snake oil over there -->

We're not buying it here.

[Taverner]

135. I sure the hell ain't!

Of course, I am of the belief that Obama is neither as bad nor as good as others say here

[Zorra]

137. Huge K&R! Ron Paul supporters: Please, get a life...

somewhere other than here.

Consider maybe starting your own website? Like corporatistunderground.com, or freemarketunderground.com, or christianstate.com, or something, use your Randian imaginations to get your own gig going instead of constantly trying to parasitically attach yourselves to healthy hosts.

[freshwest]

218. +1

[mother earth]

138. Got that right! K & R!

[Orsino]

140. I wish Paul--or any Republican candidate--weren't an evil, dangerous asshole.

It would be great for Obama to have to work to be better than a GOP opponent.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

144. i am talking about du'ers, not random RP trolls

[Beam Me Up]

145. We won't be given the opportunity (if you want to call it that) to vote for Ron Paul...

whether we'd want to or not. The Republican establishment won't allow Ron Paul to get the nomination -- any more than the establishment would allow Dennis Kucinich to get the nomination. I would certainly vote for Dennis for president in a heart beat, given the opportunity. But I'll never have that opportunity.

The point of the Republican clown car is to insure an Obama win. That's what the 1% want and they get what they want. 2016 will be a whole other ball game and we'll probably see whoever they intend to put in Obama's place surface during one of the conventions this year. It was during the 2004 convention that Obama was brought into the political spotlight and onto the national stage.

[Hulk]

151. R.P. has about three good ideas....

...and the rest is "pie-in-the-sky nonsense". Sure....get our troops out of other countries. Audit the Fed....and then?.....well, maybe only two acceptable ideas.

I'm sorry, but this clown makes mcAncient look like a 22 yr old Hercules. He's a joke folks....please don't be so damned ignorant as to take him seriously at all.

[yardwork]

153. So true. k&r

[JohnnyRingo]

156. I like to listen to Ron Paul, but I wouldn't want to live in his vision of American utopia.

I think the country's defacto motto could be changed from "In God We Trust", to "If you don't work, you don't eat".

I think the overall plan for America is a return to the day when a man couldn't walk down the street without people begging to let them shine their shoes. "Power over the poor" is the unspoken slogan of the GOP, and even barstool Republicans and Dittoheads think they'd be in the empowered class.

Ron Paul would take it to a new level, and I'll never understand why such an intelligent man thinks money can regulate itself without a Federal Reserve. It's as if old fashioned greed doesn't survive in his view of America.

[spanone]

158. paul is a republican...keep his sorry ass out of d.u.

[KamaAina]

160. Oh, and (BRRRING!)

Clue phone! Paulbots, it's for you.

[LynneSin]

161. If Ron Paul was my only option to vote for President of the USA...

I'd pack up and move to Canada.

[RoccoR5955]

168. + A Googoplex! n/t

[hifiguy]

169. Ron Paul is like your crazy uncle

or maybe Dale Gribble from "King of the Hill." He spouts loony shit nonstop and out of sheer randomness manages to say one or two things that make sense every once in a while. Not that makes him one bit less crazy.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

184. Please leave my crazy uncle out of this.

[Charlemagne]

210. Exactly like Dale

Black helicopters and call. Dale is a libertarian. They think everything is a conspiracy.

I know a libertarian, he is against fluoride in drinking water. Yes, key up the Stranglove quotes.

[Prophet 451]

182. A Libertarian is just a corporatist

I can't stand Libertarians. The whole "philosophy" is nothing more than an urge to return to a feudalist society. Yeah, there are a couple of decent positions in there but, from my observation, the thing that animates most of them is an outright loathing of the poor and any help the poor get. It's effectively saying that we should let the poor starve in the street rather than take a miniscule percentage of their income to ensure that doesn't happen. Hatred and resentment for the poor is what motivates most of them (in my experiance anyway).

Oh, and the cult of personality around Paul creeps me the fuck out.

[LeftishBrit]

197. Exactly!

[Atypical Liberal]

183. Now that President Obama has signed the NDAA...

Now that President Obama has signed the NDAA, I don't know what I'm going to do.

I really don't want to vote for him anymore.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who does not want to send America off to war. The only one. And that includes Obama (Afghanistan).

Ron Paul has a lot of faults. I don't like the idea of anarchy that libertarianism is. I don't like his pro-life stance. I don't like the idea of no government oversight for protecting the environment.

But I held my nose and voted for Obama despite his anti-second-amendment campaigning, and in spite of his pro-Afghanistan-war campaigning.

What I wouldn't give for a president who embraced the second amendment, wanted to end American imperialistic global intervention, and wanted to reign in the Fed and have some financial accountability.

[Tx4obama]

186. President Obama has NOT signed the bill

When President Obama signs legislation it is posted here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

If you think Obama has then please provide a link, thank you.

p.s. Oh, Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN and I am glad that advocating to vote for GOPers is not allowed here on DU

[Atypical Liberal]

233. Yes, I know about Ron Paul.

He also has some apparently racist skeletons in his closet.

But watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V36MT5lAMrc

This is the sort of thing that President Obama ought to be saying!

When President Obama signs legislation it is posted here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

If you think Obama has then please provide a link, thank you.

I have been hearing conflicting reports that he has, in fact, signed the legislation. If he has not yet signed it, great, but I have heard lots of people on facebook saying it was a done deal. I hope it is not.

[Capn Sunshine]

187. From a Ron Paul Paultard newsletter:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as “Hate Whitey Day.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/the-racist-newsletters-return-to-haunt-ron-paul.php?ref=fpb <<<<Todays TPM

James Kirchick, the New Republic:

"This sordid history would not bear repeating but for the fact that the media love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment. Otherwise, the newsletters, and Paul’s continued failure to name their author, would be mentioned in every story about him, and he would be relegated to the fringe where he belongs."

[ChadwickHenryWard]

211. The "Kill Whitey Day" one is problematic because his supporters can't claim it was ghostwritten.

In it he refers to his time as a member of Congress and some of his votes. Now, this is an article in a paper published by a company Paul owns, that bears his name on the top of the page, and is written in his voice. To suggest that he didn't write them stretches the bounds of credibility. Otherwise, somebody is openly impersonating Representative Paul, and he doesn't seem to have too much interest in finding out who (which shouldn't be too difficult because he owned the company the published the newsletter.) Not easy too get out of that one.

[Johnny2X2X]

188. Yup

I mean Paul has some very progressive positions, but he's a Right Winger on too many issues to even consider for anyone even close to Center Right much lest Center left or further left.

Check his stances on abortion rights and the rights of minorities, not to mention a social safety net of any sort.

His followers are among the most ill informed voters as well.

[BanTheGOP]

189. Lioness... I support Ron Paul in the PRIMARY PROCESS, but READ ON...

It may surprise many that I"m actually advocating Ron Paul EARLY in the primary

"WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING RON PAUL?????" you may ask. Simple.

I want President Obama reelected. Pure and simple.

But here's the rub: Ron Paul can NOT be the GOP nominee without other considerations.

POINT: If Romney and Obama runs head to head with no rogue 3rd Party element, EVEN with our tremendous mainstream media advantage and our overwhelming facts supporting our progressive cause, the republicanistas will subvert the vote enough to win the presidency for Romney.

What we MUST do is to ensure that Ron Paul's ego is stoked... BIG time.

If we can have him WIN in Iowa, for instance, and show up strong in the other earlier primaries, we can take out Newt Gingrich, who is a REAL danger as the GOP nominee. If Gingrich goes head to head with Obama, the republicanistas will subvert the vote enough to overcome Obama's legitimate vote plurality and steal the presidency.

But...if Ron Paul wins early, but starts to lose, he will blame the GOP "establishment." After losing a couple of Super Tuesday's, Ron Paul will bow out.

At THIS time, he will be PRIME for a 3rd Party run.

If Ron Paul runs in the general election as an Independent ("Reform", "Tea Party", or "Nutjob", then he will siphon enough votes from Romney, far more than from Obama, so that Obama will win in a plurality. I predict that Obama will get 38-39% of the vote, and the GOP and Independent candidate will split most of the other 60%. Obama will win!

However, in ANY case: if there is NO THIRD PARTY nutjob, Obama is in DANGER of being subverted by Diebold and the republicanist regime.

THAT is why I'm pushing for Ron Paul hard in the primaries. Because I HATE HIS GUTS, as well as the ENTIRE rEPUBLICAN NAZI REGIME.

[quakerboy]

190. Damn Skippy

Obama may disappoint regularly. But I'm smart enough to know that Paul would disappoint me on the even numbered issues, as well as downright fucking me on the odd numbers, and completely wrecking our country in the mean time.

No Paul voters hereabouts. He killed that with "eliminate the department of Ed", among so many others.

[wakemewhenitsover]

194. Ron Paul is the poster boy for...

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." (Emerson)

[Deep13]

196. Fascism disguised as liberty.

Just because the official government is reduced to 18th century levels will not make the concentrations of economic power just vanish. Corporations will still exist and we will become like a feudal state, except instead of being the property of land-holders, we will be the property of corporations. I mean more than we already are. And part of dismantling government is dismantling civil rights. We will go back to lynchings, pogroms, and witch-hunts for anyone outside the corporate norm.

Paul is a sad, pathetic old man who is afraid of the future. That is not a good enough reason to cave in to fascism.

Don't worry, the white, rich patriarchy has too much at stake in the current system to allow Paul to be nominated.

[freshwest]

219. Thank you!

[Jack Rabbit]

200. K/R

!!

[ChadwickHenryWard]

203. Ron Paul's policies are all staggeringly bad.

With the exception of his opposition to the wars, there is absolutely nothing to recommend him as a candidate. Even his stance on the Drug War is awful - "leaving it to the states" does not solve the problem at all (how many states have legalized recreational drug use?) Meanwhile, he wants to abolish the progressive income tax, the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, the EPA, FEMA, the FDA, and god knows what else. He is a dedicated foe of reproductive rights, and he has called global warming a "hoax." The absolute awfulness of his positions cannot be overstated.

[unionworks]

206. Amen and K&R

Paul thugs go home!

[Kahuna]

208. I dunno. A lot of people want the freedom to smoke pot anytime, anyplace so they

feel they have a vested interest in paul.

[unionworks]

224. yah you can blow pot

In the gas chamber as the zyclon b starts flowing in. You'll be dead before youknow the difference.

[Galraedia]

213. Ron Paul Puts Ideology Before History

It's too bad history has already proven him wrong. His ideas would only work in a perfect world, and we don't live in a perfect world.

[blackspade]

214. I'm not at all happy w/ Obama and I think many of his

policies and positions suck, BUT....

There is no way in hell I would vote for Ron Paul or any other rethug/tea-partier/libertarian.
I'll take sane and wrong over crazy and stupid any day.

[MNBrewer]

220. Provided there were a Democratic Congress, a Paul presidency might not be so bad

We might get the best from both. Or at least they might curb the worst in both.

[LeftishBrit]

227. There is no such thing as 'best' from someone like Ron Paul.

Anyone who campaigns to abolish social safety nets and opposes government funding of healthcare is not a human being; it is a poisonous snake.

The best one can say about Ron Paul is that he is not quite as bad as his repulsive son.

It's true that a Democratic Congress might restrain the worst of a Republican president. But in Reagan's time, the House of Representatives was Democratic, and they only managed to restrain him to a limited extent.

How could a Paul presidency 'curb the worst in a Democratic Congress', given that even the worst of Democrats (and I would consider our David Cameron similar to a bad Democrat and I HATE him) is still much better than a MONSTER like Ron Paul?

Admittedly, all this doesn't just apply to Ron Paul but to all Republican candidates! But no one on DI implies that there are any virtues in the other Republicans or that they could restrain 'the worst' in a Democratic Congress.

[MNBrewer]

231. I disagree

End the War on Drugs
End the Wars on Terror
End the erosion of civil liberties

THose are at least 3 ways in which he both stands apart from the other Republicans and President Obama. A Democratic Congress just MIGHT be able to prevent his odious policies from becoming law (had they the backbone to do it), and he might be able to prevent those Democrats who support and profit from the War on Drugs, Wars on Terror, and who support eroding civil liberties from having their way.

[PeaceNikki]

232. Paul's civil liberties only extend to white Christian men. He can shove it up his stanky ass.

[MNBrewer]

234. I guess that's an opinion

[PeaceNikki]

235. No, it's a fact. He wants to repeal Roe V Wade, he supports DOMA, he doesn't support equal pay, he

thinks discrimination is A-OK.

Fuck him.

[LiberalAndProud]

239. You have the sound bites down.

Who doesn't love the sound of "End the erosion of civil liberties." My, isn't that just luscious on the lips?
and
"Freedom of Association," is all about freedom, right?

Only it isn't about your civil liberties, it's about his civil liberties, and people who look and think like him. It's not about your freedom to associate, it's about his freedom to refuse to associate with people who don't look like him and think like him. If he should become the nominee, I think much of his support would crumble under a more sophisticated examination of this "freedom fighter."

[lib2DaBone]

221. Its sad that all we hear about is Ron Paul...

Dems have so much more talent.. if ony we could have made a primary challenge to Obama...

But the DLC won't hear of it........

[RBInMaine]

222. Stop the INSANITY ! Obama is the most PROGRESSIVE President since LBJ if not FDR. GET REAL !

[La Lioness Priyanka]

226. lol

[Douglas Carpenter]

228. for some people here - really only a few - it is not good enough to support the reelection of the

President. It is not good enough to support the election and reelection of Democratic candidates. You must believe with all your heart, all you soul and all you mind.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

236. So true

[MNBrewer]

237. Progressive?

LOL

[great white snark]

229. K&R. Thank you La Lioness Priyanka.

He has maybe 1 or 2 layers of appeal...peel those off and the rest is very, very ugly.

[Romulox]

246. Bottom line: the President is *easy* for "centrists" to love. nt

[PeaceNikki]

247. No. Bottom line is: Obama is a DEMOCRAT and Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN TOOL.

[Romulox]

248. People probably just "want the freedom to get high" (not go to war, etc. etc.)

Jerks!

[PeaceNikki]

249. And 'freedom' to restrict women's reproductive rights and 'freedom' to not have social safety nets

and the 'freedom' from any regulations, and the 'freedom' to discriminate against people not like them.

It's all bullshit and the bullshit use of that word 'freedom' in reference to Paul and his policies is nothing but pure lies.

[Romulox]

250. Women's reproductive rights are protected by the SCOTUS; we have very little "social safety net"

here in the US, and President Obama has not made either of these issues a priorities.

[PeaceNikki]

251. You know that Ron Paul said he will "effectively repeal Roe v. Wade", right?

And this thread is about Ron Paul, not Obama. Curious that you're all over it defending him and his insane supporters. Let's stop dancing around it: do you support Ron Paul?

[Romulox]

252. I think you're scared of Paul because you don't like where this discussion is going.

The fact is, addressing Paul makes the Democratic Party move back to the LEFT. The "centrists" just HATE that, because they want to move to the RIGHT to pick up so-called "moderate Republicans" who are potentially repulsed by Mittens.

That's why all this angst; should he even receive the R nomination, Ron Paul has no chance of being elected President. He has EVERY chance of making President Obama tack back to the LEFT, however.

[PeaceNikki]

253. I am 'scared' of all Republicans & their fucked up agendas. Including that nutbag.

No, I am not 'scared' of moving the party to the left. I am a Wisconsin Democrat and, in case you haven't heard, we're working pretty hard on doing just that in a very grassroots manner. What 'scares' me about Ron Paul and his cultists followers is people who claim to be liberal in any manner. If you are, in fact, a Democrat/liberal, by building him up, by supporting him, by taking him seriously, you are not driving a wedge into the heart of the Republican Party--you are only giving him a helping hand along the road to his goal of destroying just about everything you stand for.

He's right on a couple of issues, but SO VERY wrong on so VERY many important issues.

Immigration
Gay Rights
Church-State Separation
International Relations
Worker rights
Campaign finance reform
Universal health care
abortion law
against public funding of schools, head start, college assistance, medicare, medicaid.
against social security
for unfettered gun control
and Privatizing everything

Answer the question: do you support Paul?

[PeaceNikki]

255. Loyalty oath? I am asking you if you support Ron Paul, not take a loyalty oath.

It's a simple question.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

259. ok. not sure what your point is there.

i don't love obama but i sure as hell love him more than ron paul and i am not ashamed of this

[Renew Deal]

264. This obviously needs a kick