General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStill Freaking Out Over Ron Paul? Stop Hyperventilating Already and Put Some Goods on the Table
This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the General Discussion forum).
In case you forgot, we've been here already. 2004 and the Democratic Party's version of Paul got fucked over by the Koch Brothers and their co-horts at CNN, and don't you worry, it'll happen again.
Paul strikes a chord in independent voters who are sick and freaking tired of our troops and resources being forced to scramble to control other parts of the world for the financial gains of the 1%.
Paul strikes a chord in people who are tired of talking about womens' rights, gay rights, minority rights, education reform, medical reform, this and that reform, and want the issue of our basic fucking democracy addressed and addressed now, while we still might have a national treasury to work with.
You don't need to worry about Ron Paul. You need to worry about independent voters who will stay home if we don't see light at the end of the tunnel.
What have you got to offer, DC?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)"Paul strikes a chord in independent voters who are sick and freaking tired of our troops and resources being forced to scramble to control other parts of the world for the financial gains of the 1%."
Given the fact that Paul is on the record wanting a ground invasion of Iran, this claim stacks up as being one big pile of bullshit.
FSogol
(47,299 posts)F' Ron Paul and all his idiotic supporters.
NashVegas
(28,957 posts)Where in the OP does it suggest people should vote for him?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Which they are not.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)unabashed racism and hatred.
Seriously, fuck him.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)WTF does that even mean?
muriel_volestrangler
(103,480 posts)Paul supports the Citizens United decision, for instance:
I haven't heard he wants to change election systems. He's happy for corporations to have rights, and spend money however they want. He just wants a tiny government, so small that corporations wouldn't bother spending money to control it. And that would be even worse than the current situation - no-one would be able to stand up to corporations without government.
MineralMan
(148,905 posts)No thanks!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Paul offers "liberty" for corporations to pollute at will, and offers discrimination against any of the groups mentioned above also (personal liberty to hire whoever you want).
He wants to dismantle the EPA. Do you remember the mighty Cuyuhoga river, and how that river caught on fire because it was so polluted?
Ron Paul wants all abortion outlawed, no freedom of choice for women there.
So I guess there are limits to what is allowable "freedom" in his world. Corporations will have all the freedom they want tho.
MADem
(135,425 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,333 posts)
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)to seriously challenge Paul.
I think it's because most of his loudest detractors are really upset over the racism, homophobia, or abortion, but instead over his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, US support for Israel, and the shredding of the Constitution. And meanwhile those who actually have the moral authority to challenge Paul on his bigotry, hatefulness, and insane economic policies don't seem to be doing so.
NashVegas
(28,957 posts)That pretty much sums it up. Paul is practically a non-sequiter.
Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell in getting through the machine, but OTOH the conversation he's started needs to be allowed to continue. So why are DC Dems trying to shut it down? The replies in this thread are so telling ...
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)I am not a DC dem but I agree completely that Ron Paul should be shut down. Why a known racist pos like him gets any respect in this country or air time for that matter is beyond me. It is a national embarrassment. You wonder why people think you are promoting Ron Paul? Because you are. There are others not stained with a racist past who are against the war and the war on drugs and we can support their efforts to continue a conversation on those subjects without giving credibility to Ron Paul.
LeftishBrit
(41,333 posts)and I have been attacking the 'conversation started by Ron Paul' for nearly 5 years now: as long as I've been aware of his existence.
I agree he has no chance of getting through the machine and getting to be president. The problem is that he acts as a siren, luring people to attitudes of true evil, and making it respectable to some so-called progressives to be xenophobic, economically hard-right, anti-public-services, etc. There is the meme that paleoconservatives and right-libertarians are at least better than neocons. No, they aren't. The BNP are antiwar, and are *less* economically right-wing than Ron Paul; that doesn't make them a rational partner in dialogue for progressives.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Never underestimate the power of crazy.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Not to mention a devotee of the sociopathic Ayn Rand and a complete douchebag in the bargain. He spews so much pure, unadulterated horse manure that, like a stopped clock, he is bound to say something intelligent once in a while as a pure matter of chance.
Peddle your papers elsewhere.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)...in opposing the Iraq war but is absolute dead wrong about everything else.
Anyone who still thinks that he is anything other than a far right racist anti-semite homophobe is too damn lazy to read up on the man's actual positions.
For myself, all I see is a right wing extremist Texas republican. Gee, nothing goes wrong with one of those in the White House now, does it?
PEACE!
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)What?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)He is dangerous because people are totally duped by a few topics they THINK they agree with him on. He's dangerous because some people who think they are liberal defend him.
His UN/NWO bullshit is just that. Bullshit. The UN has no way to affectthe 2nd Amendment or any portion of the US Constitution. People are defending a very paranoid, xenophobic crazy-man. aPaulogists are like cult members. 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.
It's ok though, because he's not going to win, which will give what his blindered believers what they really want anyway; the ability to declare that his defeat is because he's just too pure and good for our corrupt system. We don't *deserve* Ron Paul, in much the way we don't *deserve* a puppy!
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)I like it! thanks!
PEACE!
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)Someone I know who is very leftist, a supporter of Occupy Wall Street, was inspired to get her PhD in theology by Cornel West and African-American just started posting pro-Ron Paul for President stuff on her facebook. Why? Because of his comments on Bradley Manning.
I am not saying she's right and I suspect she doesn't know the truth about all of Ron Paul's positions, particularly his views on race, and if she does I think she's being short sighted. But we can't just right off all of his supporters as racist in the Montana Militia--they aren't.
I am not Ron Paul supporter by any stretch of the imagination--I am gay, a Marxist, and an atheist and find his homophobia, bigotry, Christian fundamentalism, and economic ideology deeply unsettling. But at the same time I can empathize with OP's sentiment, though I find it very poorly worded and deeply troubling in some parts, point about how are we going to address this issues and people who support Ron Paul because of them? We need to have some better answers then derided people and calling them racist or lunatics or what not--since that's not going to work and we seriously need to nip this Ron Paul shit in the bud.
The simple problem is that Ron Paul's appeal to some on the left is not entirely the result of uninformed individuals, but a larger failure of the left that no one wants to address since it's a pretty inconvenient truth.
Instead of spending our time rallying to the defense of a corporate politician and a failed political system we should have been building a broad-based progressive movement for economic justice for all, and against imperialism.
And maybe it's about time we have an honest discussion about Israel.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Like you said, they don't actually know the truth about all of Ron Paul's positions. And/or they don't care because they are too busy focusing on the one or two that they agree strongly with him on. Deliberate ignorance.
They are aPaulogists cultists who refuse to be educated on the type of man he really is. And frankly, the ones I know and interact with here are not interested in being progressive.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think you're confusing "hyperventilating" and "discussing". Two wholly separate things, yes? Easy mistake I s'pose-- depending on one's own biases.
(Just a head's-up: womens' rights, gay rights, minority rights, et.al., are indeed, part and parcel of "our basic fucking democracy", regardless of whether one finds that politically disadvantageous)
NashVegas
(28,957 posts)That, at this particular moment in time, distract us from the fact the government our FFs set up with checks and balances is being destroyed.
If you look at the successes of gay marriage over the last 12 years, what stands out is that the wins have happened in the courts, not the ballot box. You think it's a coincidence that Newt wants to arrest judges?
But let's just scream about what a homophobe Ron Paul is, and not talk about the constitution, not talk about those checks and balances, because that's what's going to protect what gains have been made, huh?
muriel_volestrangler
(103,480 posts)http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/ron-paul-compares-social-security-and-medicare-to-slavery/
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
Spazito
(55,171 posts)"Paul strikes a chord in people who are tired of talking about womens' rights, gay rights, minority rights, education reform, medical reform, this and that reform..."
Well, I guess all I can say is FUCK RON PAUL AND HIS SUPPORTERS " who are tired of talking about womens' rights, gay rights, minority rights, education reform, medical reform, this and that reform...".
Ohio Joe
(21,894 posts)"Paul strikes a chord in people who are tired of talking about womens' rights, gay rights, minority rights, education reform, medical reform, this and that reform, and want the issue of our basic fucking democracy addressed and addressed now"
Are those not the issue of our basic fucking democracy?
Allow me to quote EarlG - "Fuck Ron Paul"
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)*some restrictions apply.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I don't think you know much about either man.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Anyone who deserts Obama for the likes of Ron Paul should come see me about a big red bridge I'm trying to sell in San Francisco. It'll collapse into the harbor in a few years due to the total lack of funding necessary for its upkeep, but in the meantime you can scrawl as many KKK slogans on it as will fit.
No, I will not support a man whose avowed purpose is the dismantling of the social safety net. I will not support a man who cloaks himself in bullshit Libertarianism while trying to pass laws that make women who choose abortion into first-degree murderers on the Federal level. I will not support a man who fears a UN one-world government. I will not support a man who thinks racism and homophobia are fine and dandy. I will work to stop these wars as I always have, but I am not going to burn down the fucking country in the process. Is that clear enough?
Paul supporters on my FB page have been making the argument that the country needs another "fruitcake" at the helm to "inspire the completion of the revolution." Nader preached that filthy gospel back in 2000. The only people who spout that nonsense are the ones who won't get hurt by it. I'm glad whoever believes that is so comfortable, but that arrogance is consigning millions into horror. "Maybe we need things to get worse," right? Fuck you. Sincerely, the millions whom such arrogance will be fucking over.
Ron Paul is a fake Libertarian bullshit artist who believes a one-world religious takeover of America will only be outpaced by a UN takeover. His economic theories are bullshit of the purest ray serene. He hates women, and in fact hates anyone who is not of his sexual orientation or skin tone. He can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut in a gravel driveway; the only thing he is good for is playing merry havoc with the hopeless dipshits of the GOP base in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Oh, P.S., advocating for a Republican doesn't fly on DU. Never has, never will. Go peddle your papers somewhere else.
William769
(58,766 posts)"Fuck Ron Paul."
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)only do so because they think supporting an "alternative" type candidate makes them look cool or unique. they usually have no idea where Paul actually stands on the issues.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Glad I'm not a gay black woman.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)make it an issue, we just want equal standing.
Oh and:
"Fuck Ron Paul."
Earl G. Dec, 2011
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)most Paul voters don't care about war... they think he will let them smoke cheaper weed.
I think a lot of them already do to excess since their brains are obviously fried.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,922 posts)and the single issue voters that only care about pot legalization or military downsizing and either don't care or are ignorant of all the batshit crazy ideas Paul has. There is no "Democratic Party's version of Paul". If you think there is, you don't have any idea what and who Paul stands for.
moriah
(8,312 posts)This is not Libertarian Underground, or Republican Underground (since he's running in the Republican primary).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Beyond this website, everyone is entitled to support the candidate of their choice. But here, we support Democrats and those who caucus with Democrats.
We aren't being mean or intolerant. It's just that the purpose of this website is to support Democrats.
I'm quite critical of Obama, but I will vote for him because I agree with him on enough issues to justify supporting him to that extent.
But this is not the place to glorify Ron Paul. He isn't running as a Democrat.
There are other places to campaign for him if that is what you want to do.
Thanks for your cooperation on this.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)without women, gays and people of color? Or having a treasury without those earners, for that matter?
You're talking about more than half of the country, for god's sake.
Of course he strikes a chord with those voters. He appeals to their basic bigotry.
Are you suggesting Democrats follow suit?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)"I don't think there's any need to have essays advocating selfishness among human beings; I don't know what your impression has been, but some things require no further reinforcement."
Hitchens on Ayn Rand
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)“Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.
spanone
(138,824 posts)Paul strikes a chord in people who are tired of talking about womens' rights, gay rights, minority rights, education reform, medical reform, this and that reform, and want the issue of our basic fucking democracy addressed and addressed now, while we still might have a national treasury to work with.
those ARE the basic fucking issues of our democracy....
marmar
(78,430 posts)Perhaps YOU should vote for Ron Paul then.
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,650 posts)Gone. Kaput. Joined in 2001.
Admins aint fucking around with the Paululans!
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,650 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)A-Schwarzenegger
(15,650 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,333 posts)The southern USA became a basic fucking democracy in 1964, long after the rest of the country, when the Voting Rights Act was passed. And Paul is on record as wishing to reverse that.
Paul is against the war, but that does not make him pro-democracy.