General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yes, Ron Paul is bad. [View all]TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)We know why Paul arrives at his positions and that it is not out of any search for good. In fact, he arrives at them by relentlessly pursuing an awful agenda and being more consistent than most of his fellow travellers probably in order to gain a niche and broaden his appeal.
None of that matters because on less than a hand full of matters he is correct however he got their or how dishonest he may be in espousing them. I certainly makes no differfence if he can bring about the policies. It only matters that they are important to people and get no other representation at high levels in either party.
Instead of bitching about how awful he is, why is our supposedly liberal party not taking these few positions away and making the old bigot a run of the mill Texas TeaPubliKlan?
I swear it is like many Democrats love the drug war, the police state, imperialist resource wars, and any systemic control on the central bankers at all (even if one isn't inclined to side with Paul's extreme positions in this area or want different extreme positions that aren't workable in his framework).
It doesn't fucking matter what Paul thinks or why, it matter why Democrats are not already occupying the ground and refuse to move to.
That is the only discussion that is not going to go right into a vicious circle.
If you want to support wireless wiretaps, the patriot act, and the drug war then do so on the policy rather than fending off the whole debate off using Paul's obvious heinousness because he is the only person in the spotlight even giving lip service to these issues.