General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPlease explain why some liberals support Ron Paul...
I understand that many liberals support the decriminalization of drugs and are fond of Ran Paul's stance on the wars. (I am, too!) However, I do not understand how they can support this man in the LARGER scheme of things: his extremist stance against government and its role; his opinion on a woman's right to choose; anti-gay rights; and hostility towards civil rights.
I don't get it, but perhaps someone can explain to me.
The major issue about Ron Paul and his son Rand that should scare us all is that he is for the dismantling of the 14th Amendment. He and his son would not have supported civil rights laws or Court decisions protecting the rights of all citizens. That means that if a private organization wanted to bar minorities--or ANY individual or group--from participating in the organization's activitities, it can. De jure segregation would be santioned and reinstated. I found out many years ago that Ron Paul was associated with certain ultra conservative groups that were hostile to civil rights. The Council of Conservative Citizens is one of these. See, there's an underlying reason for championing states rights and the privatization of EVERYTHING. In doing so, you can legalize discrimination of all types and those being discriminated against have no recourse.
Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC):
http://cofcc.org/
comipinko
(541 posts)rurallib
(62,346 posts)and for many it is war and America's penchant for it.
That at least has been my take.
Cigar11
(549 posts)Ron Paul always starts of looking like the Intelligent Adult, but then fades into oblivion like a senile old fool.
Im sure he would be a great conversation to over a beer, but as soon as he has two, hes done!
GoneOffShore
(17,309 posts)"Used to play with nah nah nah , god damned hippies
Off of my lawn."
Old Blevins (added on edit, because it took me 20 minutes to remember - suddenly I'm beginning to think that I'm Blevins)
DocMac
(1,628 posts)They must not understand his position on many social issues.
His supporters never answer just how he would get his ideas through Congress.
edit for spelling
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)that he couldn't get the REST of his agenda through Congress.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)it has a lot to do with what he would call, "The criminal activity of the Federal Reserve".
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)catabryna
(2,080 posts)and happening to agree with someone on certain issues. I agree with him on a few issues, but that doesn't mean I would ever consider voting for him or supporting him in any way.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Ron Paul on a number of issues, but I would never support his candidacy in any form or fashion.
catabryna
(2,080 posts)I was just responding to your question, from my perspective, of ..."why some liberals support Ron Paul". I suppose I did respond to your OP by using myself as an example, however.
I think liberals who support Paul are not truly liberals.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)He is the only person I can think of, other than Dennis Kucinich, and a handful of Democrats on the Progressive Caucus, who happens to ALWAYS be against the always expanding, unending, unwinnable wars.
He is the only person other than Dennis Kucinich and other members of the Progressive Caucus who understands that the People at the top of our economic pyramid, that is, the Greenspan, Paulson, Kashkari, Bernanke, Geithner types, are indeed working very hard, they just are not working for us, but their Big Banking buddies.
I even agree with him about ending governmental agencies, as they are not at all working to protect the public, but to help the Big Interests use loopholes to avoid any penalties.
But supporting him is not something I can do right now.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)They both had bigoted views toward gay people.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)about never supporting bigots. I know different people use different meanings for the word "support," but I was using it to mean "vote for."
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Someone started a similar thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100224291
MattBaggins
(7,894 posts)there is a HUGE chasm of difference between them. Ron Paul is opposed to wars as he doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. Where as Progs would offer alternative solutions to try and help the worlds oppressed, MoRon Paul would not. He simply does not give a shit.
Progressives would legalize or decriminalize most drug use and try to offer better support programs to help individuals and families ravaged by addictions, MoRon paul would not. He does not give a shit about anyone but himself and would not care one iota if parents dropped dead in front of their kids from an OD. Paul would not offer any assistance of any kind to communities trying to help poor people. He is a grade A asshole and not to be compared to DK.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Republicrat059
(3 posts)"He does not give a shit about anyone but himself and would not care one iota if parents dropped dead in front of their kids from an OD. Paul would not offer any assistance of any kind to communities trying to help poor people. He is a grade A asshole and not to be compared to DK."
He worked for $5 an hour at a charity hospital for years and delivered 4000 babies. His hospital never turned anyone away if they couldn't pay... hospitals nowadays always take people and treat them regardless of whether they can pay or not.
He is not against gay rights. He is FOR gay marriage:
As much as I hate the Republicans, I don't have much faith in the Democrats after we got swindled by Obama. Would Ron Paul be better than Obama? I'm not so sure.
Ratty
(2,100 posts)1. He speaks his mind, i.e., he's perceived as being "honest."
2. He is perceived as having principles and sticking to them, never compromising.
Under normal conditions these would not automatically make someone admirable. Number 1 wouldn't be the best attribute for a diplomat for example. And a president who represents all of America would benefit from a bit more tact than Mr. Paul shows. And if we call number 2 what it really is, zealotry, it suddenly becomes a whole lot less flattering. Seeing the world in black and white and refusing to acknowledge that not all problems have simple solutions - I've never understood why some people think that's a a good characteristic.
Then he goes and sprinkles his craziness with a few things certain people like to hear - legalizing drugs and ending wars - and all the sudden the blinders come on.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)Every damn one of them. They display the same level of hate that you can find on stormfront.
Don
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)they seem not to care. In fact, they become more strident in their support for him.
Seedersandleechers
(3,044 posts)is my only agreement to RP. Not enough to ever vote for the man. He does however stick to his convictions which is a plus - but other then that, not so much.
Lefergus70
(102 posts)Dick Cheney and GWB stuck to their convictions, and still do. It's not a virtue.
The Genealogist
(4,723 posts)For some liberals, the current "wars" are the most important issues, and ending them is priority one, or at least a very high priority. Ron Paul seems to be in agreement there, although I have seen some at DU point out how this is not necessarily the case. Sorry, on the way out the door so I can't post links right now. Also, many liberals want to throw out drug laws and the "war on drugs." So does Ron Paul. There are probably other moments where there is agreement.
Personally, Ron Paul is one of the scarier Republicans, because of his extremism. What he proposes would turn the government at the US as a whole, on its head and really cause mass hysteria if he were elected and got his agenda through.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)No liberal would support Ron Paul.
Also because certain people have pet issues only, and they don't care where the support comes from their pet issue. I recall people extolling Pat Buchanan to the skies when he opposed the Iraq war in the early 200s. They didn't care if his reasons for doing so (staunch isolationism in the world) were entirely antithetical to progressive values. If it was opposition, it worked. Just like some who fancy themselves progressives ally with people like Grover Norquist for convenience' sake.
Just in the last 24 hours here, I've seen a thread using conservative Blue Dog Dennis Cardoza to criticize the president, and an uber right-wing web site to spread doom about his chances for reelection. Whatever works.
Just never confuse these people with being actual liberals.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)
traditional sense. Traditional Libertarians don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Ron Paul Libertarians do. Traditional Libertarians are not anarchists or isolationists--at least not all of them. Ron Paul Libertarians seem to be.
(BTW, one of my posts in the Cardoza thread got hidden for pointing the very same thing you did. I was a bit nasty about it, though. I'm just sick of the BS.)
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Take my word for it.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)...and, if you're a woman, to your own body!
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)If it was possible to poll anarchists, I think you'd find that the vast majority would sympathize far more with a communist government than they would a libertarian one.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Maybe they are one issue voters who are liberal on that one issue and Crazy Uncle Ron is even further to the left on this issue than Democrats.
For example, if you are against the "war on drugs" then Ron's statement in the debates on legalizing heroin would draw your support.
This doesn't make you a liberal. You can't be a liberal and support Ron Paul.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I agree with this statement. It's just bizzare. However, you can be a liberal and support some of Ron Paul's ideas.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I agree with him on a couple of things but I am not a supporter
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Obviously, people value certain positions more than others, and are willing to accept trade offs. To support the President, one needs to support the SURGE! into Afghanistan, plus the drone war in Pakistan. In addition, one has to support an escalation of the drug war and a crack down on medical marijuana.
/not a Ron, and definitely not a Rand Paul supporter.
ctwayne
(71 posts)When you support any politician, you have to take the good with the bad. I support Ron Paul's views of our bloated military-industrial complex, and our endless wars-both foreign and domestic (like the War on Drugs). I am opposed to Ron Paul's desire to end government social programs, such as Social Security.
When you support a politician like President Obama, you support a vast system of overt and covert wars against sundry third world countries. However, you do get to keep your Medicare and Social Security, minus a variety of substantial budget cuts.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)thinking classes with Glenn Beck?
Viking12
(6,012 posts)Where did you take your strawman building lessons? Sean Hannity?
johncoby2
(3,363 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)the appeal of off-the-rails nutters like Ron Paul would be greatly diminished.
The fact of the matter is, the American People are broadly socially libertarian- not just pro-choice, but also increasingly pro pot legalization and pro gay marriage.
Unfortunately, the people who $$$ really $$$ make $$$ the $$$ decisions have decided that spending over $40 Billion a year to throw otherwise law abiding people in prison for smoking a relatively harmless plant is more $$$ lucrative $$$ than $$$ finally $$$ embracing $$$ long-overdue $$$ sanity.
Ron Paul only looks appealing because our party is head-scratchingly idiotic in a few, key areas.
Ratty
(2,100 posts)- Would decriminalize marijuana
- Emphasizes rehabilitation over incarceration
- War on Drugs benefits only the prison-industrial complex
- Racial bias in drug enforcement is pervasive
- Voted NO on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs
- Voted against invading Iraq
- Has said the US is engaging in an illegal occupation if Iraq
Other democratic congressmen share these same opinions. So why do so many morons crow every time Paul throws them a bone? They act as if Paul is the *only* member of congress who shares their positions. Kucinich will say something and you never hear a peep from these people about it. But once Paul pipes in it's an item in LBN. Very puzzling.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yes, there are other Democrats who understand that pot needs to be legal, regulated, and taxed (and not just "decriminalized"...) but the Democratic Party establishment is still too enamored of bullshit conventional wisdom -not to mention big pharma and drug warrior gravy train $$$- to at this point come around to where the American People are increasingly at; i.e. spending $40 Billion a year to keep cancer grannies, Jamband Fans, and Willie Nelson from smoking pot is a gimungous waste of energy and resources.
You see evidence of this bad 'but everybody knows' thinking all over the place, from the President's failure to lead on Gay Marriage to the unrepentantly horrible decision regarding Plan B contraception. They're pursuing a "middle" that doesn't exist, and cowering before "values voters" who aren't nearly as numerous as they would have us believe.
For the record, I'm in no way a Ron Paul supporter. I'm just explaining the appeal of certain of his outside-the-box positions.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Ratty
(2,100 posts)Perhaps Kucinich doesn't represent the Democratic Party, but do you think Paul represents the Republicans? Sorry, the thread is about Ron Paul and why people are drawn to him. They are both party outsiders and between the two individuals, sane people would choose Kucinich.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I do not think RP represents the GOP, not at all. But I consider the GOP morally and intellectually bankrupt. OTOH, I *am* concerned about getting MY party on the right side of history and issues like personal freedom.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)business should be able to discriminate based on physical characteristics; (3) doesn't believe that people have a right to health care coverage, and should in essence, DIE if they can't take care of themselves. That's not only morally bankrupt, it's sick! I don't know of any Democrat--no matter how conservative or neo-con--would agree with these Ron Paul ideas.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)He's the proverbial broken clock; however, on SOME issues, like the drug war, he makes a certain amount of sense. One can acknowledge that and still think he's a fucktard.
Shit, Pat Buchanan was against the Iraq War, but the guy is still a Nazi.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)If he were, he would LEAVE the Republican Party and form his own neo-Libertarian party. I have been arguing this for years. If Ron Paul is so prinicpled, he wouldn't associate with the Republican Party because he would not agree with the direction in which they are going.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Still, I support these issues, but am baffled that people who call themselves liberals act as if only Ron Paul holds these views. There are many Democrats who share their views. Why go to Ron Paul who is such an extremist?
fishwax
(29,146 posts)There is overlap in a few areas, and these areas find little support from the power structures of their respective parties. I think that outsider status is also part of the appeal (such as it is) that Paul has for some on the left.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It's because he's the only Republican so far that can construct a proper sentence and can actually speak intelligently. I'm not sure that equals "support" but he's right on several issues. He's wrong on many significant ones, as well, but considering that the rest of the bunch running on the Republican ticket are pretty much wrong on every single thing, that's saying something.
Again, though, I don't think that means "support" so much as "he's less awful than the rest of the Republicans." Of course, you don't have to do much to achieve that particular honor. It's like being smarter than Rick Perry.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)I get so ******* sick of seeing people praising that racist POS!
Response to redqueen (Reply #47)
Post removed
Republicrat059
(3 posts)He is not a racist. Ghostwriters wrote those things.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)On several important issues many liberals and Paul are in agreement. On other important issues they are not. It's a trade-off. I have not looked into Paul's views in any detail, but from what I've seen, I think Paul's views on many issues are superior to those of Obama. Nevertheless, Paul is so crazy on economic issues that I would have a strong preference for Obama.
One thing that struck me about your post is your claim that Paul is generally anti-civil-liberties. With respect to a number of issues pertaining to civil liberties, the typical libertarian is way more pro-civil-liberties than Obama. Maybe Paul is not as much of a libertarian as I had thought--again, I don't know much about many of his positions.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)He wants to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies; he wants to restrict gay people from marrying, and he believes that corporations should operate freely without any restrictions...EVEN WHEN THEY IMPINGE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES.
There are some issues where Ron Paul and liberals are in complete agreement. However, the underlying rationale is not the same. Paul hates government. He has a disdain for government, and is nearly anarchist in his philosophy. Liberals are not in agreement with that philosophy and DO see a role for government, albeit a limited one in private affairs and social policies.
So whereas there is agreement on these issues, the rationale is completely different. I don't think, for instance, that most liberals would support doing away with the police and living in a lawless society where people carry guns freely without ANY regulations. Ron Paul's position would be contrarian to that.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)His stated rationale for being skeptical about militarism and our recent war efforts would strike a lot of liberals as being right on the mark. As for civil liberties, he does seem to take habeas corpus and the bill of rights more seriously than most Democrats. And like many liberals, he is against the unconstitutional expansion of executive power (largely embraced by Obama) because the executive cannot be trusted to use that power in a way that respects the rights of the citizen.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Galle
(15 posts)Well actually, he thinks that abortion and same sex marriage are state issues. He's against a federal ban of abortion as well as the federal marriage amendment. He even voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions and voted to repeal DADT.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)that rationale, and we shouldn't allow Ron Paul to get away with it, either. If Ron Paul is truly against government, then NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY--local, state or federal--should interfere with a woman's right to choose. No governmental entity should dictate to a woman what she does with her own body. These are private issues, and Libertarians--truly *traditional* Libertarians--would never suggest that this is a state or federal issue. It is a private issue. And that's the difference.
Galle
(15 posts)I can understand both side on the abortion issue. Both sides, pro-life or pro-choice, could be looked at as constitutional. It all depends on if you see an unborn baby as a person.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Either one believes in a principled right to privacy or one doesn't. Why leave it to the states when the state can stilll impinge on someone's rights if it so chooses. Looks like they want to have it both ways to appeal to a certain segment of the electorate. I support President Obama, but his "states rights" meme is something that turns me off because it reminds me so much of what my ancestors had to go through trying to fight racial discrimination and anti-voter laws. The folks that were for these things often shouted "states rights" at the top of their lungs. In reality, it was not due to some principled stance on the local/state being preeminent vis-a-vis the federal government. It was really that those who wanted to continue Jim Crow used "states rights" as a smokescreen to uphold de jure segregation. Knowing what I know about Ron Paul and his insensitivity towards race issues, it doesn't surprise me that he hides behind the states rights mantra.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)He has about 3 good ideas.... the rest is covered in that video.
Free Bananas!
progressoid
(49,827 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)hompohobia, misogyny etc., let alone the hostility to civil rights (he said out loud that he thinks the Americans With Disabilities Act should never have been passed!).
Well, Mom knows now, 'cause I just sent her his anti-ADA rant.
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)"I"ll be fucked if I can figure it out!"
ProSense
(116,464 posts)<...>
Now, Paul is unique among the GOP contenders, or for that matter among politicians in general, in making monetary policy his signature issue. So its worth noting that he is among those who have been wrong about everything in this slump.
Heres a sample from earlier this year: Ron Paul: Gold, Commodity Prices Big Event Signaling Economic Collapse. Oh, and for fun: Understanding Why Ron Paul Knows More About Inflation Than Does Paul Krugman.
Ahem:
The second of those articles, by the way, predicts a surge in consumer prices in the second half of 2011. Not according to either the CPI or, for those who are convinced that the government is lying, billion price index, both of which show prices leveling off in the second half. But hey, there are still 17 days left!
Im sure that the Paulistas will find a way to claim that their man has been right about everything, even though his predictions have been all wrong. But he really has built his political career around the notion that hes an expert in a subject about which he actually understands nothing.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/speaking-of-people-whose-models-have-failed/
Krugman just described the traits of a demagogue: fact-free fear mongering. You ask why "some liberals support Ron Paul"? Exhibit A, the first comment:
I'm afraid, aside from Paul's economic insanity, he's probably the most liberal candidate, yes, even more liberal than the Wall-Street bought incumbent.
Talk about clueless!
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)extreme, but they haven't worked anywhere in the modern world.
Uncle Joe
(58,118 posts)from both political and policy standpoints.
1. The Nixon/Reagan inspired draconian fascist state "War on Drugs" is anathema to liberalism, here in the land of the free, we have the world record breaking number of prisoners at 2.3 million. A large % of those prisoners are held in our for profit prison industry for possession of cannabis. An outsized % of the disenfranchised victims from the WOD are minorities, what's so liberal about supporting that kind of injustice? To my way of thinking this is institutional racism and I thought liberals were against racism?
2. Paul has come out against the Patriot Act and I see nothing liberal about an intrusive police state government; continually expanding its' powers by oppressing the people and now using those same tools and tactics against the Occupy Protesters whether the Mayor or Governor is a Democrat or Republican, I don't view those actions as being liberal, to my way of thinking liberal and compassion go hand in hand. In my book if you can't enthusiastically support the First Amendment, there is nothing liberal about you.
3. If the Republican Party hadn't whole heartedly supported oppressive government at he behest of mega-corporations against the people and the Democratic Party joined them in lockstep I would be more alarmed of Paul becoming the Republican Nominee. However I view the current greatest enemy facing the American People as being corporate supremacy. Both parties have supported this as well over the last several decades it's just a matter of to what degree and manner. So from a poltical standpoint the times are screaming for Paul being the Republcian Nominee. This would force a serious black and white debate between the parties as they stake out their positions and the gray areas which ultimately always seemed to screw the people over will be left behind.
I believe Obama; has the good sense to take the best of Paul's Liberal/Libertarian ideas and adopt them if he were pressed to do so and Paul becoming the Republican Nominee would go a long way toward doing just that.
Thanks for the thread, Liberal_Stalwart71
librechik
(30,665 posts)liberals would never support the exclusionary nature of Paul's philosophy. You are talking about independents who can't claim to be liberals, but perhaps enjoy smoking pot. Lots of those here for sure!
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Libertarians, sure. Not liberals.
gateley
(62,683 posts)other scary ideas. Only hearing the talking points, haven't researched his entire agenda, IMO.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)of liberals who support him.
Abolish the Fed? Good idea.
Stop resource wars. Good idea.
Legalize pot. Good idea.
Elect a conservative libertarian president? No.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Made it clear that there are some issues on which liberals agree!
yurbud
(39,405 posts)And on issues of war and peace in particular, his name might come up a lot because of frustration on the left that so few of our pols talk honestly about what constitutes a threat to our national security and what our military is actually be being used for.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,118 posts)"Ron Paul Proposes Interesting Salary For Himself As President (from the current $400,000 to $39,336 the median salary of an American worker.)"
For that matter if the Congress and the Supreme Court's salary were indexed the same way, would they be more in touch with the American People and not living in a bubble so much?
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)There are conservative libertarians and progressive libertarians. The political spectrum is not just a Left versus Right continuum... there is also a "vertical" aspect to it. It's more of a grid. Progressive really describes the beliefs and goals of a government. It's analogue would be Conservative. Libertarian really describes ones belief in HOW the government should go about enforcing it's policies. It's analogue would be Authoritarian.
For example, bush was a conservative-authoritarian. I would describe Ron Paul as a centrist-libertarian... he has mixed stances on issues that normally divide progressives & conservatives but advocates a free "hands off" government with less restriction.
I can see how alot of libertarians that AREN'T conservative would choose to support Ron Paul.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)George Glass
(22 posts)The 14th Ammendment has been abused to allow the children of undocumented people to receive federal benefits (and done in every country I can think of and they don't get slammed for it). Paul favors states' rights anyhow, so even with abortion, etc. it would be the decision of each state. Nothing wrong with that.
If this satanic Senate bill passes (or at least the questionable article), NONE of us is safe from false imprisonment FOREVER.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)is the property owner upstream who believes that the water in the river flowing past his house belongs to him. Since it belongs to him he can do whatever her wants with it regardless of the consequences for people living down stream. Libertarians are people who believe in their inalienable right to shit in the river so long as it flows down stream, unless they live down stream. Then they believe in water quality laws like everybody else.
Javaman
(62,444 posts)they are generally the one (or two) issue voters. against war and legalizing pot, but the fail to read the rest of asshole pauls platform against women, minorities and the aged. Let along anyone not right wing.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)On more than one occasion I have at least been able to make the majority of liberal Paul supporters think by citing stance on healthcare and corporate deregulation- as well as education. Most of them see what they want in him- and not the whole package. When "end the fed!" and "legalize pot!" and "marriage equality!" are the main soundbites these people hear they automatically assume the canindate is extremely liberal. One of my actually libertarian friends (true libertarians I respect as a "difference in opinion" explained libertarianism as "so completely liberal it wraps back around the spectrum and becomes conservative."
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)mdmc
(28,931 posts)he is the best of the GOP..
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)who is a bigot?!?!?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)gtar100
(4,192 posts)The man's got a sweet spot for everyone.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)call, "Let's all buy our groceries with gold bars"-ism.
He's a kook, but I don't mind him being out there, because he gets in the middle of the Republicans and says a lot of things that cut directly against their lockstep programming. Wars bad? Nooooooo!
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)First of all, one very simple up front thing you need to see right now is that the only political game in town is THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. So the question is not yet whether Ron Paul is the best guy to lead the country, the question people are talking about now is who among the Republican candidates is the best to lead the country should he get elected. Its fine, as a progressive, to disagree with Paul - but you should be willing to say, in this context, which candidate you prefer: Newt? Perry?
So the next question is why are people from a broad section of political backgrounds supporting Paul in the context of this question? The answer is twofold:
1) A recent poll shows that 50% of self identified American leftists say they fear "big government" as the biggest threat, while 30 something percent fear "big business". This has been twisted in the media to say that OWS is out of touch, but deeper polling would show those same Americans who fear "big government" support OWS. So what's it about? I'll tell you one thing, their focus isn't on Frank-Dodd or anything like that, its about CIVIL LIBERTIES. Americans aren't afraid of congress passing legislature to ban insider trading amongst its members, they are afraid of of legislation like [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012"]
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[/a], which
"codifies[5] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X" Violating Habeus Corpus, and codifying into law the cartoonish situation where Americans who see missing children on milk cartons must wonder if they were disappeared by criminals or the military, because in the end there is no way to tell them apart, no way to verify who has been detained. The [a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218#top"]voting record[/a] tells a familiar story, the majority of Dems voting for it, and in that handful of names in nay, "Paul (R-KY)", the son asserting the father's civil liberties values. So it feels good to stand up for him in that regard.
2) A growing number of Americans, right and left, are sick of pundit culture. We know America is now, and has been for awhile, teetering on the brink and we see it all around us. But except for a few sources, all we get when we turn on TV looking for information is pundits opining about how Ron Paul is the "crazy uncle" at Thanksgiving dinner who says things that make people uncomfortable, and other feel-good reductions. Yet we are increasingly aware that the situation America is facing is in fact quite uncomfortable, with almost nobody willing to talk about it. Instead, we see people opining about the so called "intelligence" of people who are "politically adept" enough to tell us what we want to hear, totally disregarding the fact that when they are alone in a room full of lobbyists they will do the same, and use their intelligence to happily abandon us for the money they are offered. There is a growing sense that it is only real men and women of unwavering principle who can get anything done, despite how the punditry despises them for saying "akward" things. This sense has started in the grassroots right, but is spreading to the left as well. In fact Newt Gingrich's recent rise to leadership can be directly attributed to his immigration comments, carefully calculated to defy conservative orthodoxy after he observed the positive crowd responses to Ron Paul defying conservative orthodoxy on ending the war on drugs. People are sick of being told what somebody thinks they want to hear, they want to somebody who stands by their own beliefs, to the extent they can't be bought or sold by pressure in Washington. Its been the great mistake of the Democratic party that they have let their men of strong emotion and principle, like Grayson, like Kucinich, (surpised Sanders isn't in this list) be abandoned to attacks while they exult the "intelligence" of people who deftly avoid the horrible burden of principled action. Had they defended these men more strongly, perhaps members of the left who value unwavering commitment to principles wouldn't be looking across the isle to find an example of it in a man with different principles than their own.
Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Original post)
Post removed
madokie
(51,076 posts)so ron paul is getting some of the 16%. I would worry myself not over that
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)He's against it. Also he wouldn't get to first base in dismantling the government.
But at least we wouldn't be at war for fifteen years in 3 or 4 places b/c of some macho commander in chief.
WAR is the reason. Paul is against WAR and isn't afraid to stand up against those who favor it, even the psychopathic Reburps.
MrScorpio
(73,626 posts)But always prescribes the wrong cure
"I'm sorry, but you liver is only %10 functional
We're going to cure that with an enema."
mainer
(12,013 posts)I seem to recall he'd leave abortion up to the states.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)mainer
(12,013 posts)as so many other GOP candidates do.
And he's not afraid to say things that are refreshingly blunt. I remember him saying something like, "of course they hate us in the middle east! If someone were bombing us, we'd hate them too!" And he got booed for it by the GOP audience.
Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Original post)
LaurenG This message was self-deleted by its author.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)And he doesn't seem to be "in it" for personal gain.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)While they are on some issues I don't see them as consistent Libertarians. They are big government when it comes to a number of social issues such as gay rights and a woman's right to choose and I'm sure that is just the tip of the iceberg. I don't go as far as Ron Paul on the military. While I was strongly opposed to going to war in Iraq I did support going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. Frankly, I have always believed the Iraq War was illegal. The war Bush started was not the war Congress authorized. Congress authorized war if Saddam did not give UN inspectors full access to inspect for WMD. Hans Blix reported that, after a few issues in the beginning, Saddam complied with full inspections and that Saddam had no WMD. Bush failed to get a 2nd UN Resolution and he did not go back to Congress to authorize the war he started. Bush had a good start in Afghanistan but completely screwed it up when he diverted troops from Afghanistan for Iraq and allowed bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora. It took Obama to finish the job against bin Laden nearly 9 years later. The Paul's are like a stopped clock with Iraq being the one time they were right.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Bragi
(7,650 posts)It is not easy to find numbered postings here because they aren't displayed and ordered in a way that makes it easy to find them.
If you want to refer readers to other postings, I find it's better to use the URL so we can just click and see it.
Thanks for your attention. Feel free to continue your day.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)There is a difference between support & being in agreement.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I explicitly stated that many liberals *agree* on some of his policy positions. But there are some liberals who are declaring their *support* of his candidacy. I'm attempting to understand the motivations of the latter group.
unionworks
(3,574 posts)...as are his followers
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It appears to me that people who support Ron Paul are not liberals.
-Laelth
dionysus
(26,467 posts)thescreaminghead
(37 posts)...because he is the only one who gets that the bankers are the ones we need to be looking at, not the Republicrats. They set up this duality to keep us occupied so they can take all the money.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Edited for spelling/grammar
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)and I won't be listening to Friday's show. Thanks!!
Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Original post)
Plume Message deleted by the DU Administrators
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)So the whole "...do not take Ron Paul's personal views as his political philosophy" is pure BS.
hyacinth house
(12 posts)NDAA expels fecal matter all over it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)They may believe they are being generous by not mandating healing the sick, or feeding the hungry.
Ron Paul is the opposite of liberalism, though there are a few points of doctrine where his stated beliefs and ours intersect.