HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The real question that th...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:20 AM

The real question that the Ron Paul candidacy poses for Democrats

Why is this racist, knuckle-dragging right-winger with the economic and labor policy of a 19th century robber baron outflanking the Democrats to the left on the essential issues of empire and the drug war?

Why aren't Democrats leading the way toward peace, reducing the gargantuan military budget, and changing the drug policy that destroys so many lives and drives the police state and the prison-industrial complex?

I submit this is why Paul inspires such exceptional rage among the uncritical defenders of Obama and the Democratic establishment. Because beyond these two essential issues (and his opposition to bank bailouts), his racist, right-wing views are indistinguishable from those of any other Republican presidential candidate. But his stands on war and drug policy serve to expose the Democratic establishment's support for continuing the perpetual foreign wars and the irrational war on (some) drugs.

198 replies, 31407 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 198 replies Author Time Post
Reply The real question that the Ron Paul candidacy poses for Democrats (Original post)
JackRiddler Jan 2012 OP
got root Jan 2012 #1
SixthSense Jan 2012 #23
got root Jan 2012 #26
ellisonz Jan 2012 #159
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #2
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #141
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #146
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #170
ProSense Jan 2012 #3
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #10
ProSense Jan 2012 #13
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #15
ProSense Jan 2012 #24
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #27
ProSense Jan 2012 #30
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #35
ProSense Jan 2012 #37
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #129
ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #176
MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #157
ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #178
Scuba Jan 2012 #162
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #18
ProSense Jan 2012 #25
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #128
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #154
Scuba Jan 2012 #163
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #142
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #185
leeroysphitz Jan 2012 #4
Fire Walk With Me Jan 2012 #5
BlueToTheBone Jan 2012 #31
Fire Walk With Me Jan 2012 #126
HopeHoops Jan 2012 #6
NorthCarolina Jan 2012 #33
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #144
coalition_unwilling Jan 2012 #36
BlueToTheBone Jan 2012 #106
Autumn Jan 2012 #7
got root Jan 2012 #12
Autumn Jan 2012 #20
DirkGently Jan 2012 #130
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #136
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #137
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #139
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #124
Mojorabbit Jan 2012 #152
quinnox Jan 2012 #8
ProSense Jan 2012 #11
got root Jan 2012 #14
ProSense Jan 2012 #17
got root Jan 2012 #22
ProSense Jan 2012 #28
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #187
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #145
BlueToTheBone Jan 2012 #114
quinnox Jan 2012 #16
ProSense Jan 2012 #19
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #29
ProSense Jan 2012 #39
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #40
ProSense Jan 2012 #41
Kaleko Jan 2012 #49
ProSense Jan 2012 #69
Kaleko Jan 2012 #87
ProSense Jan 2012 #91
bread_and_roses Jan 2012 #100
Kaleko Jan 2012 #102
Mojorabbit Jan 2012 #153
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #188
Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #45
ProSense Jan 2012 #75
ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #179
BiggJawn Jan 2012 #21
SixthSense Jan 2012 #90
BiggJawn Jan 2012 #92
SixthSense Jan 2012 #94
BiggJawn Jan 2012 #104
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #9
woo me with science Jan 2012 #32
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #38
paulk Jan 2012 #158
dreamnightwind Jan 2012 #165
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #190
truedelphi Jan 2012 #168
MineralMan Jan 2012 #48
rucky Jan 2012 #34
Robb Jan 2012 #42
Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #52
Robb Jan 2012 #61
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #53
Robb Jan 2012 #57
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #67
Robb Jan 2012 #78
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #81
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #89
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #68
ellisonz Jan 2012 #160
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #43
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #44
ProSense Jan 2012 #47
BootinUp Jan 2012 #64
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #50
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #51
Upton Jan 2012 #55
ProSense Jan 2012 #59
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #60
DirkGently Jan 2012 #88
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #66
MineralMan Jan 2012 #46
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #54
MineralMan Jan 2012 #56
Upton Jan 2012 #58
ProSense Jan 2012 #62
Upton Jan 2012 #73
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #76
Upton Jan 2012 #82
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #83
ProSense Jan 2012 #103
ProSense Jan 2012 #77
MineralMan Jan 2012 #65
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #70
MineralMan Jan 2012 #86
DirkGently Jan 2012 #63
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #71
MH1 Jan 2012 #72
MjolnirTime Jan 2012 #74
nashville_brook Jan 2012 #79
99Forever Jan 2012 #80
ProSense Jan 2012 #84
99Forever Jan 2012 #105
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #121
99Forever Jan 2012 #123
Mojorabbit Jan 2012 #155
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #85
DirkGently Jan 2012 #93
ProSense Jan 2012 #95
cali Jan 2012 #96
DirkGently Jan 2012 #107
gulliver Jan 2012 #97
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #98
ProSense Jan 2012 #99
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #109
DirkGently Jan 2012 #113
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #115
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #116
DirkGently Jan 2012 #118
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #120
DirkGently Jan 2012 #125
PeaceNikki Jan 2012 #127
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #131
DirkGently Jan 2012 #149
ProSense Jan 2012 #117
DirkGently Jan 2012 #122
ProSense Jan 2012 #138
beyurslf Jan 2012 #101
Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #108
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #110
Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #111
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #112
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #119
joshcryer Jan 2012 #132
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #133
joshcryer Jan 2012 #134
ProSense Jan 2012 #135
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #140
LynneSin Jan 2012 #148
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #150
mmonk Jan 2012 #143
LynneSin Jan 2012 #147
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #151
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #156
Romulox Jan 2012 #174
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #192
limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #161
randr Jan 2012 #164
Countdown_3_2_1 Jan 2012 #166
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #167
joshcryer Jan 2012 #169
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #171
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #172
ProSense Jan 2012 #175
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #180
ProSense Jan 2012 #181
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #183
ProSense Jan 2012 #184
Romulox Jan 2012 #173
phleshdef Jan 2012 #177
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #182
ProSense Jan 2012 #186
ProSense Jan 2012 #189
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #191
ProSense Jan 2012 #194
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #195
Rex Jan 2012 #193
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #196
Rex Jan 2012 #197
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #198

Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:22 AM

1. Good point - he has basically robbed the MSG of 'change' from them

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to got root (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:57 AM

23. it was hardly "robbed"

 

It was dropped on the sidewalk years ago and no one else bothered to pick it up in all this time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:03 AM

26. true, and it is a common political theme that can be highly effective during times of stress

 

be that as it may, they once had it, and used it very effectively, but now it is being used against them.

which is only effective because of the way they have governed during the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to got root (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:41 AM

159. If by rob you mean a reversion to...

pre-1861 policies in relation to Federal treatment of the South and of society in general. If so, then yes, Ron Paul represents 'change' with his "State's Rights" message of you are alone and the government has no right to protect you from capricious State governments then yes, Ron Paul represents that sort of world-view.

Do you think any of these debates are new?

Ron Paul is a member of the John Birch Society in all but name...he's a paranoid conspiracy theorist who has figured out that you can confuse people if you say a couple things they might like: end U.S. imperialism and end the War on Drugs, btw - if you get sick, don't look to government, just go home and die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:23 AM

2. Ron Paul is an insane racist maniac

But I hope he wins Iowa and ties the idiots in the GOP into knots.

Go Ron Go!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:39 PM

141. Yes, yes, we know he is an 'insane, racist, maniac' and that's the point raised in the

OP. How come someone who is this crazy, this racist, and this maniacal is the one to want to end the Racist Drug War and the Racist Imperial Wars? People are asking ...

Are you in favor of all those wars btw?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #141)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:32 PM

146. Ron Paul does not care about the "racial" aspect of the drug war ...

... nor does he care about what you call the "Racist imperial" aspect of other wars.

Ron Paul wants to DISMANTLE our ENTIRE government. He hates the government. If he could, he is on record saying he'd kill the EPA, FDA, NIH, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, kill the Fed, return the US to the Gold standard ... end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security ... repeal the laws that ensure civil rights, product safety standards, woman's rights, on and on and on.

And so ... because he HATES our government, and he wants to stop it from doing ANYTHING ... yes, he also wants to end the "drug wars" and "other wars" ... but don't be naive ... his REASON has nothing do to with racism or anything else ... his reason is "stop the government in ALL cases".

On that racial aspect ... in an interview with Tim Russert, Paul actually thought that Lincoln was WRONG to fight the Civil War ... and instead wanted a SLAVE OWNER BAILOUT in which the US government would have PURCHASED the slaves from the slave owners, and then freed them.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ghost-of-christmas-past-ron-paul-favored-federal-slaveowner-bailout-over-civil-war/

So again ... Ron's reason for being against these "wars" is nothing more that a continuation of his larger, quite INSANE desire to return the United States to a time not unlike the wild west of the 1800s.

As for my position on "these wars" ... agreed with Afghanistan, wished Bush would have not become distracted by Iraq, did not support that in any way ... happy Obama was always against Iraq, happy it is ending ... understood why Obama said he would refocus in Afganistan as President, supported that ... glad OBL is now dead ... hope we start to back out of Afghanistan now ... as for drug wars ... think marijuana should be legal, but that issue does not break into my top 10 ... no problem with keeping some of the stronger drugs illegal, much like I support age restrictions for drugs like tobacco and alcohol.

Regardless ... Ron Paul is against these "wars" for reasons that I don't support ... that being his libertarian government model.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #146)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:28 AM

170. Close but no cigar, but extremely close...

Yes, he wants to do all those things, but not because he wants to dismante government, just the federal government. Theoretically if the state of Texas decided to have a Texas EPA that's fine, 10th Ammendment and all. This is a small distinction missed by both friends and enemies of Paul.

That said, he is a fan of ending the wars...it goes back to the traditional isolationism of the paleo cons. And his war on drugs shtick, again if the state of Texas goes after it, that's fine. Just not the Feds.

This is way too much inside Paul basebal, but when you gotta explain paulese to potential targets you need to understand it too well. This is usually shocking since Paul always writes federal government in campaign bullet points. This shit can be done, and supported, at the state level is not usually that obvious.

In fact in Paul's ideal us some states would look like 1984, while others will look like Somalia. Now to say that is a worst nightmare...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:24 AM

3. The question is

" But his stands on war and drug policy serve to expose the Democratic establishment's "

...why are you using a " racist, knuckle-dragging right-winger" and propagandist to make your point?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100296072

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:31 AM

10. Your usual black-and-white misrepresentation of what I say begs the question...

Why is it that Paul is making these points about empire and drug war and the Democratic establishment is not doing so?

Do you support the current level of the defense budget and the continuation of the war-on-drugs policies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:38 AM

13. Ah

"Your usual black-and-white misrepresentation of what I say begs the question...

Why is it that Paul is making these points about empire and drug war and the Democratic establishment is not doing so?

Do you support the current level of the defense budget and the continuation of the war-on-drugs policies?"

...absolute bullshit! You're busy hyping a racist.

Are you seriously trying to imply a positive impact to ending the war on drugs and civil rights?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=98675


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:43 AM

15. Are you for the current levels of defense spending? Are you for the drug war?

You can lie all year that I'm "hyping" Ron Paul, I don't care, it's transparent. In logical structure it's the same shit I used to hear from Bush supporters, that I was supporting the "terrorists."

Are you not willing to pin yourself down? Are you for the current level of defense spending? Are you for the drug war? Do you need some time to locate these on your list of acceptable talking points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:58 AM

24. Newsflash

Ron Paul, the "knuckle-dragging right-winger" and racist, would not reduce defense spending.

He talks shit, but he like his son, who advocated spending billions more on war than Obama, are not going to touch defense.

Paul would likely turn the military into a private army.

Do you ever wonder why cutting the defense department is on his list of agencies to cut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:03 AM

27. You are evading the question by pointing to irrelevancies about Paul.

Doesn't matter if Paul in office would really reduce defense spending, he will never be president and anyway neither of us will ever vote for him.

This is now. Right now, he claims he will. Why is he the only one doing so?

Why aren't Democratic leaders speaking to the issues of empire and military spending? Why aren't Democrats leading the way to peace, and acting to reform a patently insane, failed drug policy that kills so many people? Why hasn't the Obama administration acted to reschedule the classification of marijuana? Why is the Justice Department threatening medical pot dispensaries?

Why have they left these essential fields to the likes of Ron Paul?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:07 AM

30. Simply

"Doesn't matter if Paul in office would really reduce defense spending, he will never be president and anyway neither of us will ever vote for him."

...naive, dangerous rationalization.

A racist "knuckle dragging right winger" shouldn't even be a top contender for President. That he roped in some progressives to believing he's genuinely anti-war, and have them hyping his propaganda is pretty pathetic.

He is where he is because of some progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:13 AM

35. Nonsense: He's just like the rest of the Republican field...

except in the areas we're discussing here (at least in his rhetoric).

If "a racist 'knuckle dragging right winger' shouldn't even be a top contender for President," then your problem clearly is with the entire Republican field.

I submit the reason for your particular anger against Paul is that he outflanks the Democrats on essential issues of war and drug war.

Progressives aren't fooled by him, they merely look at all candidates including the incumbent and they see that no one else is talking about these issues. That's horrible.

So once again, are you ever going to answer?

Do YOU support current levels of defense spending? Do YOU support the drug war as currently pursued by the administration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #35)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:15 AM

37. Hmmm?

"He's just like the rest of the Republican field"

Wait, they've all written books and newsletters calling for criminalizing blacks and killing gays?

More disingenuous rationalizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:45 PM

129. Gingrich. Racist, misogynist, homophobe...

http://mediamatters.org/research/201009130054

Then we've got "tar baby" "hang Obama" member of a racist church Romney.

It's only a matter of degrees, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:25 PM

176. Wow, you're really good at avoiding questions, aren't you?

After all those accusations and rationalizations, not once did you answer the poster's question.



NGU.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:30 AM

157. "Doesn't matter if Paul in office would really reduce defense spending"

"Right now, he claims he will."

You don't mind politicians lying to you, as long as it's the lies you want to hear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MilesColtrane (Reply #157)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:27 PM

178. Do you really want to portray your reasoning as clueless?

NGU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:51 AM

162. Bingo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:45 AM

18. So much greater is the shame for allowing such a shitbrick to steal space we should occupy

Why are we giving him anything to work with? Ceding the territory has made this guy.

Emulation of the Republican establishment has given Lazzez Fare asswipes room to outflank us on civil liberties, if party ardents would push along with the rest of us to demand the party occupy that space then most of the libertarian fantasy and attraction would evaporate overnight, why the fuck would our party not be civil libertarian to the core?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:02 AM

25. What

"Why are we giving him anything to work with? Ceding the territory has made this guy. "

...nonsense. Why hasn't it made a progressive? Democrats are not the reason a "knuckle dragging right winger," a racist lunatic is being hyped by some progressives.

That's absurd!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:39 PM

128. It isn't being a racist that is putting wind into Paul's sails and you well know it.

You seem dedicated to avoiding the stances that give this clown traction and instead are focused on driving attention to his considerable negatives. A tactic that would have no necessity at all if the party was civil libertarian and anti-imperialist in its operating principles.

This ground should be held by the Democratic party, leaving the libertarian ideology unable to reasonate outside rightwing circles.
You keep focusing on the indivdual and ignoring the positions, it is the positions that have traction and by ceding the positions, an extreme right winger benefits from being the only "national brand" with any level of reconition as the only person even giving lip service (and largely consistent lip service over a number of years) to policy positions that are deeply held for many with no representation (phony as hell or not or conclusions arrived at by batshit reasoning or not).

Paul's dicey sanity and institutional racisim (personal bigotry being unimportant because he strives for a system with no protection from or remedy for such abuses) aren't important because he still gives air to good policy that is deeply important to people and in many cases integral to their personal ideologies.

You have to see the power of the attraction to the positions and push the party to disarm the far right libertarians by taking good ideological soil away from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:33 AM

154. You are arguing a completely distinct point and ignoring the one presented to you.

You also dogmatically stick to personalities and evade ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:54 AM

163. You seem to believe any mention of Paull here means he's being "hyped"...

... but you know damned well that's ingenuous.


Paul has outflanked the left on these two issues and to deny that is foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:40 PM

142. So do you have answer to the question in the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:20 PM

185. Actually, no, that's not the question

You should consider the question. It's a very good one. Read again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:25 AM

5. I don't see Democrats offering -anything- right now.

 

I see no Branding, no 'this is why we're Democrats' adverts or memes. Just quiet.

Others are working to fill that void. Obviously, people are desperate for anyone who even remotely sounds like they know what they're doing. Why aren't Dems out doing what is it called, "brand pride" works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:08 AM

31. our campaign message is "People First-Politics Last"

and we have a true progressive populist candidate. But you do have a point, and every time we do take a brand the KKKKarls make sure to say it with derision.

But Happy New Year FWWM! Welcome to our Future!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueToTheBone (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:28 PM

126. Happy new year to you and thank you for your Blue work!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:26 AM

6. I would so like to see him in a debate with Obama.

 

Every time he opens his mouth, something stupid comes out. At least the shrub had a box on his back so he could be fed lines to say. He still fucked them up, but he couldn't survive without it. Paul is intelligent enough to be an idiot without a box on his back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeHoops (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:11 AM

33. So would I, particularly with regard to issues like

Military Defense, Foreign Wars against "Terror", the War on Drugs, the Federal Reserve, Campaign Finance, Wall Street, NDAA, the Patriot Act. I would suspect on those issues alone where Paul is quite to the left of Obama would create quite the dilemma for the Obama campaign.

On edit: added a couple more issues (NDAA, Patriot Act) where Paul is to the left of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:42 PM

144. I would like to see that also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeHoops (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:14 AM

36. Me too. Aside from the Machiavellian consideration that Paul would be

 

a very weak General Election opponent, I think a head-to-head debate between him and Obama would allow for a fascinating clash of ideas (which Obama will win running away) and world views and might, just might, allow for Reagan's legacy to be put to rest once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeHoops (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:26 PM

106. It would be a jaw dropper of an evening,

wouldn't it? Yes, I'd watch that one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:28 AM

7. Because racist, knuckle-dragging right-wingers

who long for the good old economic and labor policy of a 19th century robber baron, seem to like him on a few of his issues so he is where he is. Nothing more than a distraction is what he is.
As long as he is there to discuss no one has to be bothered by this question:

"Why aren't Democrats leading the way toward peace, reducing the gargantuan military budget, and changing the drug policy that destroys so many lives and drives the police state and the prison-industrial complex?"

Yes the crazy old loon is right to oppose a few issues that Democrats, at least the new democrats, seem to embrace. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:37 AM

12. there was a young man, who was filming the OWS protestors in NYC bring up his name as a canidate

 

last night.

I was surprised to say the least, but it is indicative of how we have lost message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to got root (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:47 AM

20. Sooner or later, someone is going to come up who is not

a knuckle-dragging right-winger who will be against these failed policies such as the police state, the drug war,the obscene military budget and wars of choice and that will be a big problem
for the Democratic Party. It's a vacuum that has to be filled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:50 PM

130. We have them already. Paul's on the other side, which means he might have to be answered.


I think that's the crux of the sudden anti-Paul hysteria here. The administration can't be threatened by a Kucinich or a Sanders. A right-wingy weirdo taking progressive positions on a sprinkling of key issues poses a unique threat, because he could force conservative Democrats to argue publicly against things they're supposed to be for, like peace and personal liberty.

It's a branding issue. Democrats aren't supposed to have to defend on being too hawkish or authoritarian. They wouldn't know how to play it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #130)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:40 PM

136. They'll quickly come out against peace and personal liberty if the GOP deigns to own those issues

And smartly so. The center-right corporate set that runs the party machines looks for any opportunity to shift the debate,

As we have seen when republicans came out against individual mandates.

In liberal pockets like my hometown, it quickly became anathema to be against individual mandates. Individual mandates became a progressive idea, nay, the only progressive solution.

If you weren't in favor of individual mandates for private health insurance (an idea invented by Gingrich and Romney in the 90s)

then you just weren't in favor of universal health care because all of a sudden, that was defined as universal health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leopolds Ghost (Reply #136)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:45 PM

137. So Ron Paul candidacy could actually cause the Democ. party to have an auto-immune reaction against

Against its own liberal ideals -- whichever potpourri the opposition candidate chooses to sample.

And cast those as Republican ideas that a sensible Democrat (read: center-right) would oppose.

i.e. the Democrats would become the Republican Party circa 1875.

It would be an interesting reversal of the Overton strategy. Sort of reverse psychology if you will.

The Republicans did it with health care... well they weren't meaning to, the Dems did it to themselves
allowing the tea party to claim the mantle of civil libertarianism and opposition to corporate welfare
when in fact many tea party folks are motivated purely by racism. At least most of Ron Paul's crowd
are sincerely libertarian... their Randian ideology just stinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leopolds Ghost (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:51 PM

139. Plus, keep in mind lots of Anonymous are or were Ron Paul supporters.

Not the ones in the Occupy trenches, those are more left libertarian.

But it does give them the "cred" to be just about the only faction of
the right involved in Occupy that I've seen, with Ron Paul tents and
so-forth. The supposedly civil libertarian Tea Party folks have been
noticeably unwilling to associate with any facet of Occupy.

Is there any faction of the conservatives (non racist) that populists should
reach out to as part of Occupy? That is how a lot of people were persuaded
to vote for Obama back when Obama was the anti-war candidate -- disaffected
Main Street Republicans who were sick of Bush. Are the Tea Party folks
legitimately disaffected (self-styled) Constitutionalists or are they purely
an astroturfed anti-Obama movement? Keep in mind Occupy is opposed
to electioneering on general principle (in part because the system is broken)
so this may be a legitimate question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to got root (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:15 PM

124. And how would the resident reflexive Obama defenders approach this fact?

They would not say, "Hold on there, you have some important issues with respect to the murderous wars and the insane drug policy, the financial tyranny and the police state; let's work on them, let's help sway the D party to more reasonable positions, so you don't feel any attraction to otherwise ridiculous bozos like Paul."

No. They would say: Racists! Right-wingers! Obama-haters! Whack jobs! CTs! You are electing Republicans! You ARE Republicans and pretending not to be! It's ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

It's ironic that the most ardent single-line supporters of Obama have adopted a rhetoric and approach that makes them look like hopeless party followers with PR-inspired standardized talking points and little room to allow themselves to think out of party line. This is incredibly off-putting to the world outside party circles like DU, and wins no new voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to got root (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:12 AM

152. I am seeing lots of support for him in my young nephews and their friends

and in right wing family members that are older. He is appealing to a wide range of people. It isn't his racist views they are interested in. He talks plainly and with confidence. He has new ideas about what to do about the mess we are in, eg federal reserve. They are mostly bad ideas but it is different from what anyone in either party is advancing. They are all trying to preserve the status quo. People don't want the status quo and that is why they voted for change in 08. It really worries me. After Bush I never say never. Anything can happen with the mood globally. We need to offer some major new ideas. We might not get them through congress but we need to be out front offering up solutions loudly that offer some change from what we have now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:29 AM

8. I would only change the drug wars portion to civil liberties in general

 

Paul is very strong against the ever encroaching Orwellian movement to diminish civil liberties that seem to be a trend in this country. He voted against the Patriot Act, and more recently came out forcefully against the indefinite detention of American citizens bill that Obama just signed, for example.

You are right, on the vast majority of issues Ron Paul's libertarianism is just as bad as the right wing, but on civil liberties in general, (I guess the drug war does come under that actually) he is right.

Why are Democrats going along with reducing and rolling back civil liberties? That is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:35 AM

11. Bullshit

"You are right, on the vast majority of issues Ron Paul's libertarianism is just as bad as the right wing, but on civil liberties in general, (I guess the drug war does come under that actually) he is right. "

Given that Paul is a propagandist, how certain are you about his views on the war on drugs and how it will manifest?

Hyping this lunatic's positions as genuine only serve to whitewash the fact that he's a liar with evil intentions.

If he had the opportunity to repeal the civil rights act, would he allow blacks to smoke weed in the back of the bus?

It's clear that some people, not those who don't know better, value the right to smoke pot over civil rights.

If the likes of Paul were to create the kind of society he envisions, where would blacks, gays and the poor fit in?

Like everything else, cherry-picking Paul's mythical positions to envision a utopian society where drugs are legal requires ignoring the consequences of his other views.

How does his alleged anti-death penalty stance measure up against his charity or death position on health care?

Let's look at the numbers: There were less than 80 death penalty executions in the U.S. last year, the lowest in 40 years. Tens of thousand of people die each year without health care.

Which has a bigger impact on people's lives?

If Paul is such an anti-death penalty person, why has he made no mark or influence in his own state, Texas, the death penalty capital of the U.S.

In fact, why is he pandering to people who advocate a death penalty for gays?

He's a lunatic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:41 AM

14. you

 

are ignoring the reality that perception IS everything, and that he is making a lot of gains because of his MSG in this environment where almost everyone agrees that America ain't what se used to be, and is heading in the WRONG direction.

I think that dems are hamstrung by their masters in the 1%.

And that is why there is such a huge disconnect today, if there wasn't we wouldn't be hearing about a loon like paul garnering so much support (not to mention all the other loons).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to got root (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:44 AM

17. You

"you are ignoring the reality that perception IS everything"

...are ignoring the reality that Paul is a lunatic! So what's your goal in cherry-picking Paul's propaganda: to create the perception that he's genuine?

"I think that dems are hamstrung by their masters in the 1%. "

You can't be serious: Ron Paul is the biggest corporate tool around!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:56 AM

22. are

 

missing the point, i think you are way too emotional to have a meaningful chat with, so good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to got root (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:04 AM

28. Which

"missing the point, i think you are way too emotional to have a meaningful chat with, so good day."

...suggest you can't explain the point of hyping a racist corporate tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:28 PM

187. I believe you owe answers to several in the thread--not the other way around

Your shrill counter-accusations notwithstanding, your evasiveness is beginning to look frayed and not up to the task, and based more on dogma than anything that resembles logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:12 PM

145. You are missing the point. It doesn't matter what anyone on DU thinks of Paul.

What matters is how ordinary Americans see him. And if he is the 'propagandist' you claim he is, then that should worry you even more. Repeating over and over again in response to every mention of his name, that he is a 'racist, loon' is not the kind of strategy needed to stop someone from convincing others that he is sincere.

What Democrats should be doing is to take back these issues and run on them. All this name-calling and obsession with the person is sure not helping Democrats.

No matter how many names you call him, what is most noticeable is that the 'left' is, in the end, disagreeing with their own platform. Don't you see that? So how do Democrats change the perception that they are no longer the party to defend civil rights, to oppose wrong wars, to stop the wasteful and racist War on Drugs? Do you have any ideas about that, or you just going to respond to what you appear to see as a real threat, by repeating over and over again that he is 'loon'?

My way of dealing with him is for Dems to come out strong on all of these issues and take them back from him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to got root (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:31 PM

114. kicking out the DLC will do wonders for our message

when we get the Koch tentacles purged, we might have a real chance, so let's elect progressive Democrats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:43 AM

16. Instead of concentrating so much on Ron Paul

 

what about the point of the OP.

You honestly aren't disturbed by what the Democratic party has done lately regarding civil liberties in general? Remember how much outrage we had here when Bush signed the Patriot Act. It went on for months,nay, years, of discussion about how terrible the Patriot Act was in diminishing our civil liberties. And Bush was at fault.

How come we never talk about the Patriot Act anymore? It seems to have been quietly swept under the rug, now that it has been given the official seal of approval by the Democrats over the past few years.

Since Obama won the presidency, did that all of a sudden make the Patriot Act A-OK? Sorry, but this is one issue that really bothers me and that I feel passionate about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:45 AM

19. Hmmm?

Instead of concentrating so much on Ron Paul...what about the point of the OP.

OP title: "The real question that the Ron Paul candidacy poses for Democrats"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:06 AM

29. Yes, exactly: The question his candidacy poses for the DEMOCRATS.

The question you evade.

Why aren't the Democrats leading on the two most essential issues of peace and individual freedom? Why are they letting a lying gasbag occupy that space?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:18 AM

39. Hmmm?

"Why aren't the Democrats leading on the two most essential issues of peace and individual freedom? Why are they letting a lying gasbag occupy that space?"

...you mean like the space you're giving this racist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:19 AM

40. Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

God you're such a champ, I'll leave you to another winning year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:20 AM

41. Again

"you mean like the space you're giving this racist"?

I know you don't have a good comeback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:30 AM

49. It is you who doesn't have a good comeback.

That much is obvious to anyone who's read your replies.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:05 PM

69. Well,

"It is you who doesn't have a good comeback.

That much is obvious to anyone who's read your replies."

...it's good to know that you value this:

"Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

God you're such a champ, I'll leave you to another winning year"


Still, Ron Paul is a lunatic and those who calls themselves progressives should not find justification to hype him.

You may disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:22 PM

87. There is no hyping of Ron Paul on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #87)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:29 PM

91. You're

"There is no hyping of Ron Paul on this thread."

...right. Mentioning that Ron Paul's "stands on war and drug policy serve to expose the Democratic establishment's..." isn't hyping him.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:53 PM

100. No - it is pointing out the vacuum left by the failure

of the Democrats on these issues. A vacuum that leaves space for a Crypto-Oligarch like Paul to seize a populist stance.

I don't see any support for Paul in this thread, and am puzzled by resistance to the mere question being raised, and the reluctance to examine why he may be getting support from voters who are, as noted above in several posts, I think, fertile ground for the Democrats.

Surely this is a legitimate question of tactics and strategy in an election year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:00 PM

102. That is correct.

And with that, your entire barrage of strawman arguments spun out to deflect from the point the OP is making, falls flat. Splat!

I would also add that Ron Paul's stand on the Federal Reserve and the banker bailouts serves to highlight the failings of our elected Democrats to deal with the financial crisis in an honest and effective manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #102)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:30 AM

153. + 100 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:31 PM

188. You've got this one in a corner

Everyone can see it. She would need to admit the truth in order to get out of that corner, so that's where she'll be staying. It's formulaic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:27 AM

45. Note that Paul and the President share an opposition to marriage equalty. Why is that?

Why is that knuckle dragging policy and superstitious thinking something they share in common? Seems to me that the anti equality crowd includes Paul, and the President, the whole GOP, and 'the faith community'.
So on that one, they drag the same knuckle. As the OP suggests, it is not good that the Democrats share so much crap with Paul and yet do not agree on the few areas in which he is less than insane. The Democrats are for the drug war. yet they join Paul in the whole 'some are Sanctified and some are not' theory of secular law. They spout the same nonsense. Paul and the President. 'Marriage if for one man, one woman'. Yep.
I guess that's fine with you, sharing that support for discriminatory law with Paul? Seems that way.
The OP is correct, and your posts highlight that well. I also liked the extreme irony of your 'cherry picking' OP. I mean,. pot meet kettle and all of that.
Oh, and let me spare you the effort. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:08 PM

75. Really?

"Note that Paul and the President share an opposition to marriage equalty. Why is that?"

Yeah, they're both anti war too.

Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-anti-gay-activist-to-run-iowa-campaign.php


"Ron Paul Claimed An AIDS Patient Is ĎA Victim Of His Own Lifestyleí In 1987 Book "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100296072



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:36 PM

179. He's a Rape-Publican. Those views WON'T "manifest." But that's not the topic under discussion.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

NGU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:50 AM

21. Other than smoking Pot, I don't see Paul as that strong on civil liberties.

Racist homophobe, anti-choice Authoritarian John Birch retread.

That's the main problem for Democrats. Our young hear his "No War, Bongs for EVERYONE!" message and don't see the man behind the curtain.

Libertarians have mental problems, IMO. Libertarianism just isn't a lab experiment in civilization, we have a working model to study. It's called Somalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:23 PM

90. Smoking pot is an issue that directly impacts tens of millions of people

 

it's not a small issue. We have a million people in jail over it.

It's the #1 reason we are the #1 incarcerating society by a wide margin - we put more people in jail than do explicitly authoritarian and totalitarian societies.

It's amazingly destructive to the economy too - the cost to keep a million people in jail is astronomical, and of a size that, if this policy were reversed, would have a dramatically positive impact on the nation as a whole. And on the other side of the coin, think of the economic boost that legal trade in pot would provide - jobs, tax revenue. By some measurements, it's our #1 crop! And nobody disputes that it is at worst the second-largest cash crop in the USA. Plus all the cost savings that could result from industrial and consumer uses... cheap renewable paper, sturdy clothing (it makes awesome clothing btw), rope unparalleled by any other natural material, cooking oil, sustainable biofuel, and many more uses.

It's not just about smoking it to get high. It's about all the things that are done in the name of stopping people from smoking it to get high that are far more destructive than the wholly hypothetical reasons given for banning it.

editing to add - prohibition is also the most racist policy in the United States today, and not by a little bit either. A black person is more than 10x as likely as a white person is to go to jail for smoking pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Reply #90)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:31 PM

92. But are you willing to destroy the rest of the social fabric for it?

You pretty much proved my point here, I think.

Ron Paul is not a cafeteria line, you can't pick and choose the parts of him you want. You want relaxed pot laws, good, but you have to take the "shove the homos back in the closet" part, the "Privatize EVERYTHING!" part, too.


There just has to be another way besides electing Joe McCarthy's crazy nephew. There has to be another way besides a world of "Man, it really sucks, having to boil the tapwater before I use it, but at least I can I can boil it over a fire of pot stems..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #92)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:38 PM

94. What social fabric?

 

Between relentless incarceration and surveillance of regular folks and the total license of the top 1% to get away with whatever the hell they please, the only threads left in the social fabric are the ones that bind our hands from freeing ourselves of corporatocracy.

I'm not arguing for Ron Paul. I'm arguing for the Democratic Party to pick up these key issues of social and economic justice and run with them, as is the tradition and raison d'etre of the party as well as the overwhelming popular will.

Looking at Ron Paul, even with all those fringe viewpoints he gets a lot of support because nobody else will do the right thing on these key issues.

There is no excuse for a black Democratic Party President to be pursuing the drug war with the fervor of a KKK Grand Wizard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:15 PM

104. I got you now.

Yes, I agree.

"There is no excuse for a black Democratic Party President to be pursuing the drug war with the fervor of a KKK Grand Wizard."

Wholeheartedly agree. Our "Champion" has turned out to be a lot less than what we had hoped for.
This country hasn't won a war since 1945, and the Drug War is the worst of them. But the alcohol lobby wants to be the only ones who alter our consciousness, PHARMA wants to sell us expensive pills that mimic THC, and the private prison industry, well, they're the biggest winners of all in this mess.
And everybody in DC is in on the scam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:30 AM

9. That is the real story, Jack. Rather than demand the party kick the legs out from under

Captain Libertarian they are going with attacking the positions in every way from directly to focusing on attacking credibility on them or just sticking with his convoluted thinking that arrives in the correct position for the wrong reasons.

Take away the turd's mojo and punt him back to the rest of the TeaPubliKlans to stew in the majority of his platform and incidentally do the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)


Response to woo me with science (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:17 AM

38. Yes. Exactly. Thank you. To repeat your final line:

"Many of these people would MUCH rather be Democrats, if only Democrats would offer them something."

And a bunch of rhetorical bullying that they are enabling a bad man won't do it. If Democrats want to attract people who find appeal in Paul's positions on war and drugs and a corrupt government-banking complex, they should OFFER THEM SOMETHING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:34 AM

158. I'll reply to you, since woo me with science's post got hidden

I just wanted to say, along with you, yes, exactly, thank you, etc. and - there is no way in hell that the post in question was a violation of the community standards of this board. There are people here whose main interest lies in shutting people up, and they are abusing the jury system in order to do so.

I encourage other readers of this board to read the post that was hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paulk (Reply #158)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:11 AM

165. Yes I thought that post was excellent

Why is something like that deleted? It's the discussion we need to be having. I'm no rules expert by any means, just wondering what crossed the line there. Unless I hear a good reason, I'm thinking shame on DU for hiding it, it felt like truth to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paulk (Reply #158)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:37 PM

190. I read the post, and I consider it DANGEROUS that the post was hidden

It was full of truth, and if Democrats are fearful of that truth, then I am fearful of what we are becoming

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:01 AM

168. But the Democrats are offering us all something...

It is called the End of Democracy! Sure makes everything a lot more exciting, knowing that for the first time in a long time, neither major party cares one whit about the backbone of democracy, the majority of us in the Middle Class! (I mean, for Pete's sake, back in the day of the Haymarket riots, even the Republicans put up ads in newspapers supporting the striking workers.)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:30 AM

48. Ron Paul Stands Against Civil Rights and Equality for All.

That is all I need to know about this man.

Fuck Ron Paul!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:13 AM

34. Bingo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:21 AM

42. Absurd. You sound like Ron's mother

...telling him the reason the other kids keep picking on him is because they're secretly jealous of his new blue sweater, rather than enraged by the Aryan Nation lunchbox he's brought to school every day since classes began.

Occam's Razor applies. I criticize Paul because he is a bigoted asshole, a trait that explains 99.9% of him. If you want to believe it's because of his new sweater, you're -- like his mother -- either delusional or dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:41 AM

52. Paul is a huge anti gay crusader. More so than the President, although they share the

final, dogmatic opposition to marriage equality. They stand as one on that. Sanctity! And yet the history on DU shows us that hate preachers slandering gay people get the defense of the defenders. Pony, pony, one song, one prayer, poutrage. Yeah, sure. You always go after the bigots. Unless they are 'ours' such as Warren, McClurkin, that new guy at the DNC who spouts his hate.
Why is it that MY Party agrees with a shit like Paul on the issue of my equal rights? That is the uncomfortable question. And it is a good question. A damn good question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:55 AM

61. You want to make it personal?

Would you care to show where I have done any of what you accuse me?

Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:45 AM

53. Congratulations for criticizing Paul. You're a real trooper in the fight.

Must have been tough going there!

Now tell us: Why aren't the Democrats leading on issues of peace and drug war? Why aren't the Democrats calling for reductions to the military budget and reforms to the drug policies that cause so much misery and kill so many people for no good reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:51 AM

57. I find your definition of "leading" fascinating.

Why is the insane man on the subway the only one yelling at the other passengers?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:03 PM

67. So you think opposition to war and drug war is like an insane man on the subway?

Or would you like a different metaphor?

What is your stand on the level of military spending and the US drug policy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:14 PM

78. Weak sauce. No, you see, Paul is the insane yelling man.

I don't care if the insane yelling man supports single payer or free puppies, he's an insane yelling man.

There is zero benefit to highlighting the insane yelling man's positions, because -- and I can't believe I have to say this -- he's an insane yelling man. He can yell about his own poop the next day, and it is of similar consequence.

I feel like I'm arguing with the machine at the batting cage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #78)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:15 PM

81. You did a much better job of making a point I tried to make as well. Perfect.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #78)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:23 PM

89. It's all right, many people argue with the batting cage machine after so many swings and misses.

Paul should be irrelevant. Yet he's not, because two essential issues are ceded to him. Mad man for sure, but he's the only major-party presidential candidate talking about -- raving about if you will -- the huge bloody dead elephant carcasses in the room.*



* metaphor of elephant refers not to the Republican party symbol but to big important things we deny, in this case millions of victims of the wars for empire and the drug war conducted at bankrupting expense to the US taxpayer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:05 PM

68. And I have asked "leading who?" with no answer.

Because to argue that we are not 'leading' Republicans is preposterous. The only other possibility is 'leading Paul'. Again, preposterous... he's all talk. CRAZY talk, to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #42)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:54 AM

160. +1000

"rather than enraged by the Aryan Nation lunchbox he's brought to school every day since classes began"

Fuck Ron Paul. He carries water for White Supremacists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:22 AM

43. Make no mistake, he also inspires rage among us who are critical of Obama.

He should inspire rage among all Democrats.

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 is against public funding of schools, head start, college assistance, medicare, medicaid
He is against social security
He is for unfettered gun control

He's also wrong on:
Women's reproductive rights
Immigration
Gay Rights
Church-State Separation
International Relations
Worker rights
Campaign finance reform
Universal health care
and he wants to privatize EVERYTHING

Fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:26 AM

44. Agreed on all points: "Fuck him." But why aren't the Democrats leading on peace and drug reform?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:29 AM

47. Wait

"Agreed on all points: 'Fuck him.'"

Really? You just agree with this comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=98853

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:58 AM

64. lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:33 AM

50. Leading who? The Republicans? I think we are.

If you mean 'leading Ron Paul', I call total BS. His ideas are stupid, and won't work in the real world. It's no wonder that most of his supporters are people who don't understand what it means to live as self-supporting members of society.

And there is his UN/NWO bullshit is just that. Bullshit. The UN has no way to affectthe 2nd Amendment or any portion of the US Constitution. He is a paranoid, xenophobic crazy-man. aPaulogists are like cult members.

I actually kind of envy the aPaulogists their evidently bottomless stores of denial and ability to excuse EVERY glaring deficit in their completely twisted Great Leader. That kind of confidence is really pure in its way, even if it IS utterly blinkered and moronic and could get us all killed.

Paul is a wolf. The fact that he is the one trying to fit into the sheep suit isn't the entire problem, however; his platform is stupid and impractical.

What I find amusing is that some people support him on the grounds that the present system doesn't work. But it actually does, more or less. Libertarians want to exchange a system which actually works reasonably well for the majority for a system which doesn't work for anyone, except in a theoretical vacuum. It wants to let the market determine the economy without regulation. What's funny about that is the ones who are supporters of "OWS", yet support a guy who would remove all the socioeconomic checks and balances currently applied to the "1%".

Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or pacifism; he would also withdraw from the UN (including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

I don't know much about economics, but a return to the gold standard appears to me to be a likely trigger for severe deflation. Furthermore, while operating in gold might have worked 200 years ago, in a truly global economy, it doesn't.

He would remove social spending for almost everything, assuming the states would pick up the bill. First of all, where does he think the states will get the money for this? From the federal government, of course! So what's changed?

He claims to want to lower tuition, but what he wants to do is actually remove government control of tuition, and (wait for it) let the private sector deal with it. Do you actually believe that will result in lower education costs? Really?

None of us have time to cover point for point why Paul's selective and obsolete vision of a libertarian utopia won't work.

Let's just say it is the perpetual motion machine of political dogma; if it worked it would be really impressive and everyone would be happy, but it doesn't.

And, they have a paranoid nutter at the helm. Better luck next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:38 AM

51. No. Not the Republicans, and not the point.

More stuff about how Paul sucks. It's not the point.

Why aren't the Democrats leading the way on lowering the defense budget, ending the empire, reforming drug policy, reducing the surveillance state, rolling back the civil rights outrages associated with the "war on terror"? On the contrary, why is a Democratic administration escalating several wars, keeping defense as about half of the discretionary budget, refusing to reclassify marijuana and threatening pot dispensaries?

It shouldn't be Ron Paul who gets to talk about that stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:48 AM

55. Great questions..

good luck getting any straight answers though..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:53 AM

59. Actually

"More stuff about how Paul sucks. It's not the point. "

...the point is Paul sucks. Why do you need to mention him and attach positions to him that you know are false. From the OP:

But his stands on war and drug policy...

Paul is not anti war, and hyping him serves no purpose except to create the impression that he is credible on somethings.

Again: "That's like saying the KKK has some good ideas on buying local."

Would you argue that?

"Why aren't the Democrats leading the way on lowering the defense budget, ending the empire, reforming drug policy, reducing the surveillance state, rolling back the civil rights outrages associated with the "war on terror"? On the contrary, why is a Democratic administration escalating several wars, keeping defense as about half of the discretionary budget, refusing to reclassify marijuana and threatening pot dispensaries? "

You just made a poin without mentioning Paul, and I'm sure you could find a lot of credible opinions by prominent people to support your point.

"It shouldn't be Ron Paul who gets to talk about that stuff. "

It seems to me that the points are being made as an excuse to mention Paul.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:54 AM

60. It *is* the point, though. He 'gets' to talk about the stuff he talks about because he is a lunatic

and his ideas are not realistic. And the ignorant masses who don't question the feasibility of his ridiculous ideas thankfully are not in the majority.

And... if any Democrats goal is to change the system, they sure as shit know better than to point to Ron fucking Paul as the guy to try to emulate. On ANY issue.

To be quite honest, it's one of the things that soured me on Kucinich in 2008 - he legitimized Ron Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:23 PM

88. No. He gets traction with liberals where Dems have dropped the ball.

There's no talking around that. Paul sounds crazy where he's crazy. The reason he doesn't sound crazy to all progressives all the time is that he grabs all the low-hanging fruit where corporate Dems fear to tread.

Policies are separate from people. That's what the one-note hyper partisans never get. Whenever Democrats support pointless wars, or continue Bush's destruction of the Bill of Rights, or raid pot clinics, they empower this turkey.

THEM. Not the people pointing out that a crazy guy is right about several things corporate Dems and our current President are wrong about.

You want Paul pushed back into the weeds? Get mainstream Democrats to start acting like liberals. Then people who oppose immoral foreign wars and police-state readings of the Constitution won't have to go to a crackpot to hear their views supported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:00 PM

66. And yes, I will post 'more stuff about how Paul sucks' in every conversation on DU that involves him

in which I participate. On that, you have my word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:29 AM

46. +100. When it comes to civil rights and equality,

Ron Paul is far, far to the right. Progressives stand for those issues above most others. Any candidate who has as poor a set of beliefs on civil rights and equality issues simply cannot be taken seriously by any progressive.

Fuck Ron Paul!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:46 AM

54. Civil rights are for white, male, Christian property owners. The rest of us are fucked in Paultopia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:51 AM

56. Precisely. That is why any praise for Ron Paul on other

issues is worthless. Ron Paul does not like minorities of any kind. He thinks they have no real place in his world.

Well, I have no place in my world for Ron Paul. Fuck him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:52 AM

58. The War on Drugs...

is a war that is disproportionally affecting minorities...is that the kind of civil rights Obama defenders stand for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:56 AM

62. What?

"The War on Drugs...is a war that is disproportionally affecting minorities...is that the kind of civil rights Obama defenders stand for?"

Are you trying to argue that "Obama defenders," many of whom are real progressives, are worse than Ron Paul?

How do you envision a policy ending the war on drugs works along side a policy that repeals the Civil Rights Act?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100298754

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:07 PM

73. I never said they were worse that Ron Paul..

and though I'm extremely dissatisfied with Obama, I'm not a Paul supporter. I do, however, find many of these attacks on him rather odd....and also hypocritical in light of what I already mentioned about the effects on minorities of the drug war...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:08 PM

76. You find attacks of a Republican on DU to be... "ODD" and/or hypocritical?!?!

Seriously!?

Frankly, I find ANY defense of him on DU to be odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:15 PM

82. And I find defense..

of Obama's crackdown on MMJ, his signing of NDAA, his expansion of the drone program..oh hell, anything he does is okay with some here. Even the continuation of many of Bush's policies is now alright. Anyway, I find all that really odd. It just reeks of blind partisanship..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:17 PM

83. Quick.. move the goalposts!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:01 PM

103. Well,

"of Obama's crackdown on MMJ, his signing of NDAA, his expansion of the drone program..oh hell, anything he does is okay with some here. Even the continuation of many of Bush's policies is now alright. Anyway, I find all that really odd. It just reeks of blind partisanship."

...hyping Paul isn't the answer. And I find it appalling that a racist is being hyped while Obama's achievements, repealing DADT, enacting health care reform, rejecting and reaffirming that the U.S. does not torture and closing the CIA torture camps, and ending the Iraq war, are ignored to do so.

Here's what happens when Paul is confronted: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100299262

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:11 PM

77. Wait

" I never said they were worse that Ron Paul..and though I'm extremely dissatisfied with Obama, I'm not a Paul supporter. I do, however, find many of these attacks on him rather odd....and also hypocritical in light of what I already mentioned about the effects on minorities of the drug war..."

...more odd than criticizing a racists who advocated criminalizing blacks and killing gays?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:00 PM

65. The War on Drugs as a national issue

is way overrated. It barely registers on any list of national concerns. It's important to some, but not to enough to have any importance in the election. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:06 PM

70. Many polls now show a majority supporting marijuana legalization.

But clearly, your education might be served by a bit of random stop-and-frisk by the NYPD, maybe the cops deciding some fuzz in your pocket is leftover marijuana (even if it isn't) and hauling you in for a look-see.

You can explain to the arresting officers why this isn't an important national issue. Because you probably don't frequent such neighborhoods, or do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:20 PM

86. Look, I've been working to end laws against voluntary

use of drugs since the 1960s. What I said is that the issue is not high in the list of priorities for most Americans, and will not play a role in the 2012 elections. Yes, a majority thinks marijuana should be legalized, but they don't think about it a lot.

As for your suggestion that I should be stopped and frisked by the NYPD, I've been stopped and frisked by the DCPD several times. That happened in Georgetown in 1968-69. I'm already educated, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:58 AM

63. Nailed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:07 PM

71. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:07 PM

72. I think you are incorrect - or at best, broad-brush stereotyping

in the motives you assign to 'uncritical defenders of Obama' etc.

You claim:

"I submit this is why Paul inspires such exceptional rage among the uncritical defenders of Obama and the Democratic establishment."

Not being quite an 'uncritical defender of Obama and the Democratic establishment' myself, but probably so characterized by the anti-Obama faction here (because I find a lot of the criticism here - not all - over-the-top, and/or false, and frequently not at all 'constructive'), let me point out another possible motive for us to be exceptionally angry at Ron Paul's candidacy:

Because he is SO GOOD at manipulating vulnerable, shallow-thinking idiots into following him; but mostly because he manages to suck in otherwise intelligent-seeming people. Because we have met people who seem to lose ALL reason when you try to discuss Ron Paul's actual positions with them. Case in point: one particular Paulite I know, calls himself an environmentalist, and is active in environmental causes. He's otherwise a nice guy who seems to care about the world. But somehow the Paulites have brainwashed him, and it is impossible to have a rational discussion about what a Ron Paul presidency would mean for the environment.

I mean, c'mon, someone who cares about the environment, supporting Ron Paul?? What. The. Fuck. How separated from reality does someone have to be for that to compute? How in the world would running this country on a libertarian model (particularly pro-business libertarian) help the environment? The air and water don't recognize state boundaries. Free-rider and race-to-the-bottom would be the rule. I could go on and on but hopefully my point is clear.

So while your assertion may be true for some, it is not true for the entire range of 'Obama defenders' as your OP seems to be suggesting.

I would also suggest that the rage stems partly from the concept that the two things he is arguably, sort of, right about, are NOT even remotely the only issues that liberals should be concerned about. Those two areas DO NOT represent the whole spectrum of "progressive values", let alone LIBERAL values. Some people praise Paul as if those two areas ARE the only ones that matter. To me and my 'ilk', they are not, and it does sometimes raise the blood pressure when people treat it like it is. (Also, I think Paul is total b.s. on the war issue. He voted to invade Afghanistan, right? So he has hardly any leg to stand on. And I am not in favor of complete isolationism, as he is. As to the drug war, I feel about it like I do the death penalty - I would dearly love to have a candidate who was on the correct side of the issue, but it's hardly my highest priority, and therefore not a litmus test).



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:07 PM

74. Ron's not outflanking anyone. He's a lunatic who never had a chance at the Presidency.

 

Quit fluffing Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:15 PM

79. very well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:15 PM

80. The hand-wringing over this..

... nutcase that stands absolutely no chance of either getting the GOP nod or even making a viable 3rd party run at the WH, simply amazes me. I don't know a single person that considers themselves a Progressive that would even think for one second about voting for the racist cretin. His stopped clock correct stances on a couple of issues, even KEY issues, don't come close to making up for his batshit craziness on MOST issues.

You are absolutely right that TPTB in the Democratic Party have ceded the the only issues he gains ground on to him. Too damn bad they are too effen close-minded to do the right thing concerning those issues and take even that away from him. Must not be any corporate money in doing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:18 PM

84. So

"The hand-wringing over this..... nutcase that stands absolutely no chance of either getting the GOP nod or even making a viable 3rd party run at the WH, simply amazes me. I don't know a single person that considers themselves a Progressive that would even think for one second about voting for the racist cretin. His stopped clock correct stances on a couple of issues, even KEY issues, don't come close to making up for his batshit craziness on MOST issues. "

...why keep mentioning him? He is where he is because people keep mentioning him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=98833

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:18 PM

105. "...why keep mentioning him?"

Where have I ever "mentioned" Ron Paul on this forum, EVER? What is it with you and assigning ideas, thoughts, positions, to people you neither know or have ever even had a conversation with about said subjects? Do you ever ask for someone's actual opinions before you attack them? This is twice you've pulled this on me and I don't appreciate it. What is your problem, sir?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:09 PM

121. wtf?

"..why keep mentioning him?"

How many OPs have you written on Paul just in the last week? 50? 60?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #121)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:15 PM

123. I noticed exactly the same thing.

Yet this guy accuses me of doing it? The one and only time I have ever even posted on this website concerning Ron Paul is on this thread. Yet this person attacks me like I'm some sort of enemy? (and this isn't the first time.) What is with this kind of paranoia? I'd really like to understand what's behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #84)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:45 AM

155. Mentioning him on an internet discussion board is not giving him any traction

It cracks me up when this is insinuated. We all know he would be a disaster as President. We all know he would be an ineffective president if he got elected because congress is not going to give him anything he wants so he would be essentially neutered. None of this was the point of the op which is why we are not standing up for those things that should be in our arena, why have we ceded them? It is a legitimite complaint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:19 PM

85. 99 +1 in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:35 PM

93. Exactly. He's not an election threat. They doth protest too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:39 PM

95. You

"Exactly. He's not an election threat. They doth protest too much."

...think this guy is a Ron Paul supporter:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/01/1050482/-Texas-Frat-Boys-New-Years-Resolution-Murder-Obama!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:40 PM

96. I don't know what makes you think that Democrats are the party of peace or killing the drug wars

that sure ain't true historically- no matter how the party platform reads in any given era. And we all know that the party is more conservative now than it has been in decades and decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #96)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:46 PM

107. Democrats are the party that wants votes from those that support those things.


Which is why Crazy Ron Paul must be destroyed completely and characterized as therefore being wrong about everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:46 PM

97. Paul is not constrained by the need to be politically viable.

That's the answer to your first question. It's easy to have a mix of principle and wacko in a candidate that has no possibility of winning. He's more of an art project than a candidate.

Then the second question is just falsely premised rhetoric. "Why aren't the Democrats leading the way....?" They are. But the Republicans are misleading the other way. I hate stating the obvious, but there you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #97)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:47 PM

98. Very well put.

As Robb said, he's the insane man yelling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #97)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:51 PM

99. Exactly

Paul is not constrained by the need to be politically viable.

That's the answer to your first question. It's easy to have a mix of principle and wacko in a candidate that has no possibility of winning. He's more of an art project than a candidate.


It's why as he moves up in popularity, the veneer is coming off. People have been falsely hyping him as anti war, and now even his campaign manager rejected that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #97)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:55 PM

109. You're not constrained by it either. So how do you stand on war for empire and drug war?

And why can't you find a non-knuckle-dragging, viable candidate who is outside the bipartisan consensus for empire and drug war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #97)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:19 PM

113. Obviously something Paul's saying is "politically viable" or it wouldn't so anger Obama partisans.


Can't have it both ways. If he's an irrelevant kook, there's nothing to be said. No one listens to irrelevant kooks.

And, he's not going to be elected President.

So let's do go ahead and state the obvious: This recent wave of frantic Paul bashing is being conducted almost entirely from a hardline Obama loyalist perspective. The hardline loyalist view doesn't like to hear inconvenient truths about Democratic failures on certain progressive issues. It's touchy and defensive because Glen Greenwald and others have pointed out how *EVEN a libertarian whacko like Paul* can easily stake positions on things like foreign wars and drug policy that show up supposed progressive leaders.

And this is where the narrow partisan worldview falls apart. Just as we are supposed to ignore Obama's failures on many progressive issues because he is a Democrat, we are supposed to ignore the rare but important progressive points Paul makes, because he is not.

That doesn't make any sense. Just because political campaigns are conducted as though one person is right about everything and the other is wrong about everything doesn't make that reality. We all know it isn't.

That's what's obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #113)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:39 PM

115. Excellent points. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #113)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:42 PM

116. Totally untrue. He should inspire rage among all Democrats.

By building him up, by supporting him, by defending 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 is against public funding of schools, head start, college assistance, medicare, medicaid
He is against social security
He is for unfettered gun control

He's also wrong on:
Women's reproductive rights
Immigration
Gay Rights
Church-State Separation
International Relations
Worker rights
Campaign finance reform
Universal health care
and he wants to privatize EVERYTHING

Fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #116)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:02 PM

118. The precise strawman silliness Greenwald predicted in his piece. Again, the partisan worldview


is wrong. The fact that Paul is right about one or two things Obama and others are wrong about cannot be denied or shouted down on the basis that Paul is not overall a desirable leader.

That's just a completely fallacious premise, and it's the same one that infects so much of the ludicrous bickering we see here. Turn your post around, and it's equally irresponsible to criticize Obama for anything, because he's ostensibly a desirable leader, or right about other things.

It's not just intellectual dishonesty, it's deeply simplistic, irresponsible argument. If all we need to know about a policy issue is whether Team A or Team B supports it, there is nothing to discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:08 PM

120. Um as I have pointed out in this thread, he isn't right about anything.

His ideas are stupid, and won't work in the real world. It's no wonder that most of his supporters are people who don't understand what it means to live as self-supporting members of society.

And there is his UN/NWO bullshit is just that. Bullshit. The UN has no way to affectthe 2nd Amendment or any portion of the US Constitution. He is a paranoid, xenophobic crazy-man. aPaulogists are like cult members.

I actually kind of envy the aPaulogists their evidently bottomless stores of denial and ability to excuse EVERY glaring deficit in their completely twisted Great Leader. That kind of confidence is really pure in its way, even if it IS utterly blinkered and moronic and could get us all killed.

Paul is a wolf. The fact that he is the one trying to fit into the sheep suit isn't the entire problem, however; his platform is stupid and impractical.

What I find amusing is that some people support him on the grounds that the present system doesn't work. But it actually does, more or less. Libertarians want to exchange a system which actually works reasonably well for the majority for a system which doesn't work for anyone, except in a theoretical vacuum. It wants to let the market determine the economy without regulation. What's funny about that is the ones who are supporters of "OWS", yet support a guy who would remove all the socioeconomic checks and balances currently applied to the "1%".

Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or pacifism; he would also withdraw from the UN (including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

I don't know much about economics, but a return to the gold standard appears to me to be a likely trigger for severe deflation. Furthermore, while operating in gold might have worked 200 years ago, in a truly global economy, it doesn't.

He would remove social spending for almost everything, assuming the states would pick up the bill. First of all, where does he think the states will get the money for this? From the federal government, of course! So what's changed?

He claims to want to lower tuition, but what he wants to do is actually remove government control of tuition, and (wait for it) let the private sector deal with it. Do you actually believe that will result in lower education costs? Really?

None of us have time to cover point for point why Paul's selective and obsolete vision of a libertarian utopia won't work.

Let's just say it is the perpetual motion machine of political dogma; if it worked it would be really impressive and everyone would be happy, but it doesn't.

And, they have a paranoid nutter at the helm. Better luck next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #120)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:27 PM

125. 1) Not the point 2) You literally just copy pasta'd your own prior post? As a "response?"


The point, once again, is that even a crazy Libertarian like Paul embarrasses mainstream progressive leaders with easy calls like the futility of foreign wars and the war on drugs.

You can't overcome the logic of that by pointing out that Paul is a crazy Libertarian.

But I'm going to respectfully withdraw from discussing it with you further, as you literally copied your own post and regurgitated to me as though you'd somehow resolved the entire cosmos of the topic with the painfully obvious "We should not support a Ron Paul candidacy" statement you put forth earlier.

We know. He's not a good candidate. Or a good leader. Or anyone anybody should vote for.

Which just makes it worse that he can make supposed progressives look bad by pointing out areas in which they have completely dropped the ball.

Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #125)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:33 PM

127. It was clear you didn't read or comprehend it in context of this subthread.

So, yes, I copied and pasted it.

And you still don't understand, so... I, too, will withdraw from trying to discuss it with someone who throws around ridiculous statements like "strawman" and " intellectual dishonesty", "deeply simplistic, irresponsible argument". Obviously you can't see the points I make despite them being made repeatedly.

So... yeah,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #120)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 05:57 PM

131. And this has what to do with him having any functional space at all is because Democrats

insist for no good reason to allow him to essentially be the only representation whatsoever for the few positions he is correct on (regardless if he honestly holds the positions or if he arrives at them only because of being broadly insane in pursuit of an ideology that was already unworkable when it was first set out).

Democrats should be the civil liberties party, not just when compared to the opposition but in active pursuit of our ideals.

Democrats should not be partners in the foolish drug war.

Democrats should not be writing indefinte detention bills.

Democrats shouldn't be beating the Pax Americana drums.

Democrats shouldn't be granting immunity for wiretaps.

Democrats should be fighting the Patriot Act tooth and nail rather than rubberstamping it.

The only reason Paul (and by extension the libertarian ideology in general) have almost any air outside of the looniest of the faaaaar Reich is because he is giving some level of representation of deeply held ground that a liberal party of any worth or seriousness of intent would occupy along with a sane broader framework built for the benefit of the many.

Ignoring that on some critical points there is no other representation is not a fix, his schtick only works because he is a voiceless on less than a handful of points and because by trick, accident, or or twisted logic based on a fucked broader framework.
This little space is all that seperates him from Louie Gohmert and part of the larger divide in our party, which is the reason we are having this discussion.

It isn't really about Paul at all and the insistence on making about Paul is a wholesale distraction because some folks don't want to have the debate about these issues. In fact, will do anything to avoid dealing with the why our party is on the wrong side of these issues regardless of if it can be argued that the point occupied on the wrongness scale is less odious than what the opposition is about.

Yes, 8-1 penalties for crack versus coke is far better than 20-1 but it makes neither anything resembling sane and it exemplifies the essential failure in thinking on issue after issue in our leaders and by extension what the rank and file will swallow that which sustains a failed paradigm that makes actual solutions impossible to even propose, much less implement on any human time scale and arguably works to strengthen the status quo and only offers "hope" for actual change in some fine day when the environment changes by magic and electing folks with a particular letter by their name regardless of their policy positions or even their actual votes.

Folks will go to the water even if it is mostly sludge, give the people the water and they will come to your well, don't allow a fuckwit like Paul be the sole source of the water on these occurs.
I see no possible benefit in screaming about sludge when you won't even discuss the water and there is even less point in the asinine pretense that the water isn't there, even if the guy selling water has no intention nor ability to provide it.

Folks will still be thirsty and nothing will paper that over. Certainly not pretending we must have the police state, the drug war, and be quick to get involved in military adventures that tend to be to give multinationals resource control.
Sure, Paul's ideology is unworkable and more so undesirable but not in the areas where he gets traction, which again are the areas where Democrats should be ashamed of not owning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #131)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:59 PM

149. Dead-on. The threat is that progressive ideas Dems have abandoned resonate. Defeats the narrative.


The guy is more dangerous because he's able to claim ground we should never have ceded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #113)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:42 PM

117. He's

"Obviously something Paul's saying is "politically viable" or it wouldn't so anger Obama partisans."

...definitely saying things that "anger Obama partisans," but I wouldn't characterized them as "politically viable."

Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-anti-gay-activist-to-run-iowa-campaign.php


"Ron Paul Claimed An AIDS Patient Is ĎA Victim Of His Own Lifestyleí In 1987 Book "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100296072

Are you saying that only "Obama partisans" are angered by the things he's saying? Are you not angered by somethings he says?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #117)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:14 PM

122. You empower Paul by so carefully ignoring the point of the OP


The OP echoes what Greenwald and others have so inconveniently (for hardline Obama partisans) pointed out:

Even a crazy Libertarian like Paul can easily beat them on key progressive issues, because there is so much low-hanging fruit. You want crazy? How about $2 billion a week to attempt to occupy Afghanistan? How about the ramping up the "war on drugs" by sending the DOJ and the IRS after medical pot clinics?

Both politically tricky for mainstream politicians, yes. But both are issues a progressive could easily afford to be right about in public. Yet Obama is not.

Which, I can only surmise, is why your responses here are not to the OP, but rather try to change the subject and destroy Paul as a whole.

The OP did not endorse Paul or his racism or homophobia. It pointed out, as Greenwald recently did, that Paul has attracted a lot his support by grabbing low-hanging fruit like opposition to pointless foreign wars that progressives have left hanging.

Ron Paul isn't still around as a political figure because of his crazy and offensive views. He denies the worst of them, and de-emphasizes a lot of the rest. He's around because of the one or two things he has right.

The point you seem to be missing or avoiding is that it would be easy to take the progressive ball out of the hands of loonies like Paul.

So why don't we? And why don't you even want to discuss it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #122)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:45 PM

138. Hmmm?

"You empower Paul by so carefully ignoring the point of the OP"

Bullshit!

"You want crazy? How about $2 billion a week to attempt to occupy Afghanistan?"

Ron Paul voted for the Afghan war.

Want Ron Paul crazy? How about $40 billion off the bat to hire private mercenaries to hunt Muslims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

All the bullshit justification in the world doesn't explain hyping a lunatic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:57 PM

101. I think it is also because few people know his racist, homophobic beliefs.

They think he is a live and let live kind of guy. If he runs 3rd party, we need to change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:55 PM

108. With eight simple words

 

you took your own valid and intriguing point and turned it completely unserious. Which is a shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dewey Finn (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:57 PM

110. You could at least quote the eight words so I know what you mean, dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #110)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:06 PM

111. I'll leave you to figure that out.

 

Some contemplation might do you good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dewey Finn (Reply #111)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:07 PM

112. O zen master! Seven syllables for you. And in next line, five.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:07 PM

119. Nailed it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 05:59 PM

132. But, his stances on war and drug policy are not different. That's what pisses *me* off.

You are spreading the untrue meme that Ron Paul wants. He wants you to think he's actually against those things, when he is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #132)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:14 PM

133. Again, missing the point.

Screw Ron Paul. This is about the question that the Ron Paul candidacy raises for the Democrats.

He's perceived as anti-empire and for ending the drug war, and you know what? Liar or not, misinterpreted or not, his rhetoric promises a lot more in these areas than Obama's ever did, even before he took office and started escalating wars and signing laws to authorize permanent detention. Why is that? Why aren't the Democrats the party of ending empire and drug war? Why is the Obama administration in support of continuing to devote 50 percent of discretionary spending to the military, and raiding medical pot dispensaries?

(Anyway, in your posts here in the past, you've established yourself as a supporter of the US maintaining a planetary death star that allows it to intervene anywhere at any time, and as someone who believes that this is necessary so that we can commit acts of humanitarian imperialism with our bombs of freedom. I'm guessing, long as it's a Democrat doing it. Are you hyped for Syria? Do you think we can take Iran? Don't you just wish they'd go for Cuba, or Venezuela?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #133)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:20 PM

134. Most intellectuals know better. All you're doing is giving him a platform to lie.

And you think that it's OK because it forces "dialog." Most people have a good idea what Libertarians are about, which is why they hardly ever get voted in. Most people know Libertarians want to legalize drugs and take away Social Security. They're not stupid. Only those who aren't critical thinkers and who take Ron Paul's claims at face value, they're the ones so wide-eyed about it.

And... WHAT THE FUCK. I am a "supporter of the US maintaining a planetary death star"? Can you please, for the love of all that is good, explain this nonsense? Seriously. That is the most crazy shit I have ever heard here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #133)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:22 PM

135. Right

"He's perceived as anti-empire and for ending the drug war, and you know what? Liar or not, misinterpreted or not, his rhetoric promises a lot more in these areas than Obama's ever did..."

...so it's important to continue to feed the perception that he is "anti-empire and for ending the drug war" when, in fact, he's interested in an empire in which racism and inequality thrives?

It's a good thing Ron Paul is in his seventies, and I hope his son isn't hyped in the same way.

Otherwise, I could see progressives using this flawed logic to increase is popularity and strengthen the perception that he is something he isn't.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:32 PM

140. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Ron Paul is an asshole,

was always an asshole, and will always be an asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #140)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:35 PM

148. Hell I think at one time or another everyone one of those GOP candidates have supported an issue...

that I would support.

It's the same thing - Broken clock being right twice a day.

That doesn't mean I support any of those assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #148)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:58 AM

150. Very true! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:41 PM

143. Yep.

Pretty obvious. And it strikes a nerve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:33 PM

147. Anyone who cares more about their drugs then the rights of minorities, GLBTQ and women.....

can kiss my ass.

Just saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #147)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:08 AM

151. Apparently the rights of two million people in the prison system...

most of them caught up in the drug war for sales and possession offenses...

a disproportionate number of them minorities from a poor background...

or the resulting disenfranchisement of a large proportion of black men through felony convictions...

or the fact that prisons are also labor camps used to suppress all working people's wages...

or that millions of black and latino people are subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...

all of which has the drug war as one of the main pretexts...

matter even less to you.

Your statement is flat-out wrong. If it were merely making the absurd argument that it's all right to imprison people for possessing marijuana long as other peoples' rights (presumably yours?) are protected, that would be bad enough.

However the drug war has millions of victims, corrupts entire societies (especially police forces), forms the basis for enormous money laundering and offshore influence on politics, costs untold billions in state and federal funds, has devastated entire nations (Mexico and Colombia), funds narco-dictatorships and death squads, uses fear just like the "war on terror" to move politics to the right, and was condemned for all this last year by a commission of the UN consisting mostly of liberal and conservative former presidents of many of the most hard-hit countries! Oh yeah, the drug profits made possible by prohibition have also funded covert operations and paramilitaries around the world for decades, from the Kuomintang to the Contras to the Afghan mujahedeen (both when they were US allies and when they were enemies).

It is an epically disastrous and inhumane policy with effects that go beyond the already intolerable injustice of imprisoning people for their personal consumption choices (whether or not these are bad choices).

Sorry LynneSin, you shouldn't narrow this huge issue down to dismissable (if wrong) simplistic talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #147)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:11 AM

156. Why does it have to be a choice and how much of one is considering the real world

impacts on minorities? The direct effects are a debacle and the ancillary impacts combine to make a nightmare that also further empowers some of the worst elements making all our lives difficult.

The entire train of thought also works as an effort to minimize the accompanying concerns about military intervention and broader civil liberty and privacy concerns.
Clearly, civil rights cannot be guaranteed in a society that cannot maintain due process and habeas corpus and we can't afford critical initiatives bogged down in playing the game of acquisition and security and security of resources for tax evading, unemployment creating, environment wrecking multinationals.

Ending the failed drug war doesn't mean ending civil rights, it means advancing and protecting the rights of all.

It also would be pretty decent to back off the "when did you stop beating your wife" style logic, unless you feel it is fair to ask you why you want to incarcerate huge chunks of the minority population for corporate profit and political advancement for a lucky and mostly white and wealthy few?

How is it not shitty to inject such as your reasoning and how is it the least bit decent to ascribe similar motives to others? Not a soul has even suggested they would trade anyone's rights except from certain establishment quarters and not for drugs but for political position, then it is called "pragmatism" and celebrated like a virtue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #147)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:21 PM

174. They're locking up potheads...for gay rights? Logic problem here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #147)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:45 PM

192. Very cruel of you

And just exactly why in the fuck would I ever want to kiss YOUR ass? That's fucking disgusting. Do you always speak like this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:38 AM

161. Yes and no...good idea, worth looking at, but mostly no.

Ron Paul's policies are racist.
====

But as to the point in the OP...

Ron Paul is pretty popular among a certain group of mostly younger white males.
But most of them are not racist, at least they don't think they are.
Some of them support him because of his positions on issues.

If the Democratic party were to take clear positions defending civil liberties, reforming drug policy, preventing the police state, standing up to the military industrial prison industries, etc, etc., then we might be able to peel off some of Ron Paul's people to vote Democrat instead.

But mostly I think they won't go for a Democrat anyway.
Their basic principles are
1)State's rights and
2)An fetish for smaller government.

The areas where liberals/progressives/Dems/lefties might agree with Ron Paul people, as important as those areas are, they are just coincidences.
On issues of equal or even greater importance, we on the left would never be able to agree on a candidate for major office that the Ron Paul people would also find acceptable.

Unfortunately some people don't know the difference between talking about issues and talking about personalities, so it can make getting at the issues a little tough sometimes.

I still think Democrats should lead on many of those issues though, and some Democrats do indeed do so.
But I don't think we'll be snatching away many Ron Paul supporters. They "don't like us".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 09:22 AM

164. We all know that Ron Paul is a racist and unlikely to ever win the Presidency

The attraction to him, as I see it among may of my friends of both political persuasions, is that he has the nerve to enter a dialog about some of the real issues we care deeply about. We all know too well that any discussion of an end to American Imperialism, reductions of military expenses, ending the war on drugs, abolishment of the Homeland Security Act, and specific infrastructure project proposals are seriously missing from arguments on both sides of the aisle.
I, for one, hope Mr. Paul kicks ass in the Republican primary and gets their nomination.
We will then have a Democratic candidate, Obama, who will have to defend positions on these issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 07:31 AM

166. Ron Paul has NEVER been a threat. We should be LAUGHING at Paul.

Shine the light of scrutiny upon him and he morphs into a totalitarian monster.
As a racist with 20 years of racist newsletters, Paul is unelectable.

Pauls supporters are a bunch of retards and racists from the Klan.

No. A Paul candidacy means a Democratic landslide.









that is all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Countdown_3_2_1 (Reply #166)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:12 PM

167. So? Why all the particular rage at Paul?

Correct: He's not a threat to win the presidency.

But as this thread makes obvious, he is a threat to the liberal self-image. Because certain positions he takes - against war and empire and the unlimited power of the state - expose the fact that a bipartisan consensus in this country already supports incipient totalitarianism.

The USG wages wars of aggression for empire and conducts torture and does not prosecute but rewards the perpetrators. The USG now arrogates to itself the right of general warrantless surveillance of millions, the power of indefinite preemptive detention of suspects without legal counsel or informing their family. We still have Guantanamo and secret prisons, presidential power to designate enemy combatants (under whatever label) who are fair game for assassination without trial, including citizens, the authority to assassinate foreign leaders, the concept that the whole world including the "homeland" is battlefield, the USA PATRIOT Act with its expansive definitions of "terrorism," the Homeland Security Department, militarization of police, use of military as police, vertical and horizontal integration of hundreds of state and local police agencies under federal supervision without independent let alone civilian oversight, plans for "Code Red" without the silly colors, harrassment of whistleblowers (Thomas Drake), unwarranted classification and over-classification of millions of documents, vast secret agencies that are unaccountable and barely overseen by another branch ("Top Secret" budget now up to 80 billion dollars), privatization of government security functions (two thirds of "Top Secret" budget now goes to private contractors).

All of the above are part of a bipartisan consensus, like the USA PATRIOT Act and the new defense authorization.

Ron Paul, who is bad in general and who will never win the election, has spoken out against most if not all of these developments. This enrages liberal supporters of the Obama administration because they feel shown up by an otherwise extreme right-winger and racist.

You should be able to see that without thinking that you therefore "support" let alone will vote for Ron Paul! At the same time he and the Republicans support legal harrassment of voters off the rolls, use of felony lists and all the other various means to suppress the vote. He's happy with many forms of trampling on the rights of women and minorities, especially when it is states rather than the federal government doing the trampling. The only thing I'd dispute about the characterization of him as a racist is the idea that he differs from Gingrich, or Santorum, or for that matter Romney. The Republican party has pushed racism in code as a central means of constituting its base in every election since 1968 and of course, before that as well. Ron Paul is only worse because his newsletters were so open about it.

His racism must be condemned, but it shouldn't become a way to exculpate the racism of the Republican Party -- or to disguise the continued prevalence of racist institutions in the United States. One of the most destructive racist institutions in this country is the selective drug war, which serves as a basis to disproportionately harrass, evict, arrest, prosecute and imprison people of color. Millions of lives are destroyed by it, if you include the many nations that are narcostates to meet the demand for commodities that are profitable only because they're illegal. Liberals, if they hate racism, should have decriminalization of drug policy as one of their top priorities. But it's nothing to most of them; and then along comes this crazy fringe character and upstages them on such a basic and clear-cut item of justice and human rights. This inspires rage, as we can see on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #167)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:05 AM

169. He's a threat to liberal-self-image because his ideology is incompatible with liberals.

Full stop. That includes his "anti-war" ideology, that includes his "anti-drug-war" ideology. It's not compatible.

Why isn't Jill Stein given as much credit? She's running for President. And her ideas actually are compatible with liberals!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:29 AM

171. If you got Paul this would be no brainer

See response 145.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:08 PM

172. Here's an example of the tragedy.

The Paul campaign released a video based on one of his speeches that condemns wars for empire and military occupation categorically, as inexcusable wrongs that kill people and that generate the hatred and "terrorism" (a catch-all term that also includes insurgency) that then threatens the US and is used as the excuse to wage more wars for empire, in an endless cycle.




I consider it nothing less than tragic that no national political leader on the left represents this truth in what is indisputably the most important issue. It is not an endorsement of Paul to say that the above words are true and important, regardless of how regressive his politics is otherwise. I do not endorse Paul. Those who react by claiming this is "support for Paul" rather than support for peace and an end to empire are engaging in sophistry.

Many liberals are reacting absurdly. They should be clamoring for peace and an end to empire regardless of who is president. Instead, this issue, which they understood was central under Bush, is suddenly considered a peripheral matter, a "special interest." Wasting more than half of the US discretionary budget for spreading destructive potentials around the world is supposed to be a triviality, a concern only for an intransigent antiwar minority. (So is the imprisonment of two million people, mainly for dealing or possessing drugs, and the support for murderous narcostates abroad.)

It gets even worse. Liberals who condemned Bush's interventionism discover that interventionism is good.

Here's one example of where it leads: a horrid piece of sophistry in The Nation in which the writer tries to deflect leftist interest in Paul's foreign policy by urging leftists to consider the merits of... Huntsman's! Which is indistinguishable from the "centrist" pro-imperial consensus that already has the US intervening worldwide in pursuit of evanescent "strategic interests" and hunting 99% fictional "terrorists."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165483/huntsman-better-foreign-policy-alternative-paul

That's the impression I get here too. That people really do prefer the imperialism of a Romney because he falls within the "bipartisan" foreign policy consensus, even though objectively he'd be the greater threat to Obama in the fall.

Standing up for principle should be more important than avoiding the appearance of agreeing with Ron Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #172)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:23 PM

175. That's

by Paul's SuperPac, and it's the most absurd, conspiracy driven, fearmongering propaganda by a bunch of racists.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #175)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:58 PM

180. Thanks for showing the culmination of this sorry trend.

A statement that forthrightly rejects war and interventionism, and acknowledges that people around the world do not want foreign military in their countries, is now... racist. (No need to say why based on the statement itself; it comes from the tainted people, and is therefore automatically so.)

Again, illustrating the tragedy of which I speak:

Once Obama commands the war machinery that was thought so odious under Bush, and the opposition to it comes not from liberals but from the left and in part from palecons like Paul, the cognitive dissonance is intolerable to those who need their team to be good team and the other team to be bad.

Thus war becomes peace, opposition to it becomes racism. It shouldn't be surprising, since it's only the mirror image of the language-reversals practiced by the neocons under Bush, whose dichotomous simplifications rendered all opponents of Bush's wars into friends of the "terrorists." It shouldn't be surprising, except to those who expect better from Democrats and liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #180)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:01 PM

181. You

"Once Obama commands the war machinery that was thought so odious under Bush, and the opposition to it comes not from liberals but from the left and in part from palecons like Paul, the cognitive dissonance is intolerable to those who need their team to be good team and the other team to be bad."

...don't seem to understand that Ron Paul is full of shit!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002129506

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=129621

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #181)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:07 PM

183. I most certainly do,

"understand that Ron Paul is full of shit," as you put it, and as any reader of my posts on this thread can easily surmise, if they allow themselves the conclusion.

But I don't programmatically restrict myself to that understanding as the only allowable insight. I'm not here looking for thoughtcrime and deviations to exterminate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #183)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:11 PM

184. You know what

"I most certainly do, "understand that Ron Paul is full of shit," as you put it, and as any reader of my posts on this thread can easily surmise, if they allow themselves the conclusion."

...that's one excuse for constantly hyping Paul's views that makes no absolutely no sense. There are other Republicans who are also full of shit, and no one makes excuses for constantly hyping them because they said they support something that they do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:20 PM

173. It's more insidious than that--they're trying to link opposition to war, Drug War to rightwing

racism--a fucking obvious Rovian trick from the intellectual heirs to the neoconservative movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:26 PM

177. Ron Paul isn't anti-war because of any morally sound reason. The same goes for the war on drugs.

Ron Paul is anti-war because he is an isolationist who believes Jews are making us all fight. Ron Paul is against the war on drugs because he is against regulating drugs, period.

Ron Paul poses NO questions for Democrats. I don't think any of us that are truly Democrats need to feel uncomfortable because an anti-semitic John Bircher who hates any and all federal government power happens to favor some positions that would produce a few results that the more liberal among us would be happy with.

The fact of the matter is, a lot of Americans will FUCKING DIE as a consequence of Ron Paul ever having his way. We'll lose a lot more Americans to the buckets of cancer that get dumped into our drinking water as a result of Ron Paul government that we will ever lose in middle eastern wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #177)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:03 PM

182. There will be no Ron Paul government.

So there's little need to raise the specter of its horrors.

We will continue losing Americans (are they the only ones who matter?) to wars in Asia, because we treat war, the supreme crime, as some kind of peripheral issue (as in your trivializations of it), instead of uniting to end it. And of course Americans will continue to die from "the buckets of cancer that get dumped into our drinking water" because corporations (like the frackers they are) run the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #182)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:25 PM

186. And

There will be no Ron Paul government.

So there's little need to raise the specter of its horrors.

We will continue losing Americans (are they the only ones who matter?) to wars in Asia, because we treat war, the supreme crime, as some kind of peripheral issue (as in your trivializations of it), instead of uniting to end it. And of course Americans will continue to die from "the buckets of cancer that get dumped into our drinking water" because corporations (like the frackers they are) run the government.

...that's not the point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002132150

You seem to think that the only way to make your point is via Paul.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:32 PM

189. "Romney would support a war on Iran. Donít vote for a neocon warmonger!"

Ron Paul will not only get the traditional conservative right. Heíll get the far right, and heíll get a lot of support from all across the political spectrum who think the Patriot Act, torture and the Iraq War are wrong and un-Constitutional.

http://www.davidduke.com/general/romney-would-support-a-war-on-iran-dont-vote-for-a-neocon-warmonger_25255.html


See, they're anti-war just like Paul.

2007: Paul keeps donation from white supremacist
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/#.TvsxyyNWoqQ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #189)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:45 PM

191. Wait, so now you're "hyping" Romney?

Are you for Romney's potential war on Iran?

Would you rather see Obama oppose Romney instead of Paul, although Romney has a better chance of winning against Obama?

Are you thus not-so secretly for a Republican victory, etc. etc. (Continue applying ProSense logic ad infinitum, until....)



Also, if David Duke says the opposite, I guess you think the PATRIOT Act, torture, and the Iraq war are right and constitutional? See, you're anti-Duke, just like the supporters of the Iraq war and torture. Right?

I suspect none of these questions will be answered in your next reply?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #191)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:49 PM

194. Frankly

"Wait, so now you're 'hyping' Romney?

<...>

Also, if David Duke says the opposite, I guess you think the PATRIOT Act, torture, and the Iraq war are right and constitutional? See, you're anti-Duke, just like the supporters of the Iraq war and torture. Right?"

...it appears the wheels are coming off your argument. Are you now going to begin hyping Duke?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #194)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:57 PM

195. Thank you for continuing object lesson

in the debilitating logic of false dichotomies.

Caution:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:47 PM

193. Just because that crazy man has one or two good thoughts in his head

DOES NOT an endorsment make...but people here are deseperate to make it seem that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #193)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 02:04 PM

196. But why is that?

If I understand you, you're wondering why admitting that Paul is right about certain issues makes some people so angry, to the point where they misrepresent this admission as an endorsement.

Well, why?

Hint: the problem isn't the minor candidacy of Ron Paul, or the majority of his regressive standard-issue conservative Republican politics, which are indistinguishable from the views of his primary opponents.

The problem is that talking about issues of war and empire at all exposes the support for war and the authoritarian statism of all US administrations, including the current one. Which is impossible, because it's a "D" administration. Therefore war is peace and antiwar is racism. Got it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #196)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 02:09 PM

197. I don't think they are angry as much as I think

they are pushing a certain agenda and Ron Paul is part of their plans...what I don't get is all the air-time these types give to Ron Paul ON this forum, when they hate his guts and tell other people to do the same. I am beginning to believe certain people have this obsession with telling others what to 'think and do' and how to behave toward what they believe to be the ONLY way...to cut this short Jack, it is Binary Thinking and you and I both know the score.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #197)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 02:13 PM

198. Yes.

I am beginning to believe certain people have this obsession with telling others what to 'think and do' and how to behave toward what they believe to be the ONLY way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread