General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon Paul: The Only Presidential Candidate Telling Important Truths
Which is why he's so fucking dangerous.
Let me be clear: Ron Paul is a nut. If he had things his way, our country would be... well, a basket case like Somalia. Any reasonable reading of history shows that his policies inevitably lead to catastrophe.
Paul is a crazy, but he's a crazy who's getting traction, and that's a big problem.
So why is he attracting positive interest from otherwise-sane people?
First off, both mainstream parties have utterly failed Americans. As Elizabeth Warren says, "America's middle class has been hammered, squeezed and chipped at" for 31 years. Both elected Republicans and elected Democrats have gleefully participated in this withering attack, participating with gusto in the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. Republicans led the assault, while Democrts chanted a chorus of "we suck less who the fuck else ya gonna vote for, chumps?" as they too waged war on the working Americans.
Second, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who has consistently called out important truths that Americans know are right. Our Government serves only Wall Street, our wars are insane wastes of blood and money, and our civil liberties are being destroyed.
Americans today are in a bad situation. They know that the Republicans will not help them. They see no evidence that Democrats will help either. But here's a guy who's at least is telling the truth about some things... "maybe he's telling the truth about the other stuff too" they begin to think... "maybe we should end social safety nets and decimate government" and all the other wrong-headed stuff that Paul spews.
And suddenly a dangerous nut is their only hope.
We live in dangerous times.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
boston bean
(36,221 posts)He will never ever be president. His supporters are like larouchies, and are a major turn off. Almost as much of a turn off as Paul is to most.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)and Hitler.
Ron Paul is neither of those, but this is how bad things become mainstream.
RZM
(8,556 posts)He has some supporters who have gone to him because they don't like anybody else, but they aren't particularly loyal. His followers are like a cult and it's downright scary sometimes.
During 2008, I worked in an office that wasn't opened until 7 am. Before that you would need a key. I voted very early in the morning on primary day and went straight there after. I was there a bit before 7. Paul campaign stuff was everywhere when I walked in, including several things that were slid under every door, including mine. No other campaign materials were present in the building and this was at the height of the Obama/Hillary contest in a very Democratic area. One paper under my door showed a graphic of Paul taking off the 'V' mask. I found that pretty amusing since Guy Fawkes was executed for trying to blow up parliament and Ron Paul is a congressman. I don't think the people that produced the image realized they were indicating that their candidate wanted to blow himself up.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)According to the WSJ exit polls, half of Paul's votes came from those under 30 years old and 3 out of 10 said they are happy with Obama and most were "independents."
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Just tonight Ron Paul indicated "calmly and deliberately" leaving Afghanistan. This is a major policy shift for him.
Ron Paul: "I'll pull out troops within weeks."
Tonight: "I'll calmly and deliberately leave Afghanistan."
Trusting Ron Paul to be truthful is folly.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Leaving excitedly and randomly?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Cons FAR outweigh his Pros.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)Gotta love the two-party monopoly we have.
Even if Ron Paul won the nomination, at best he might actually force Barack Obama back to the left.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Something's gonna give out... and it may not be pretty.
LuvNewcastle
(16,845 posts)the erosion of civil liberties, including the imprisonment of large numbers of people in the War on Drugs, but these are not trivial issues to a growing segment of society. The Democratic Party could get ahead of the curve by initiating reforms in drug laws and penal codes. The under 30 crowd right now thinks that the two parties are identical because neither party will speak to the issues that concern them. If the Democrats won't stand for liberty, there will be others willing to fill that void.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. ARE identical on every issue that matters to me. That doesn't mean they are completely identical, but even if you take out the "matters to me" qualifier there really is not much difference.
Yes, the Dems will extend unemployment longer, they will stave off "austerity" a while longer but at the end of the day, for all of the policies that put us in this position, the cozy relationship with banksters, the willingness to engage in pointless military action, and on and on and on, there really is no discernable difference.
I am not young, but please do not assume that young people are getting it wrong. It is older people who are living the memory of what being a Democrat USED to mean that are not seeing clearly IMHO.
All that said, all of the enticing ideas proposed by libertarians are washed away in a single torrent tidal wave of economic policy madness that would result in one corporation owning the world in a couple of decades. No thanks.
LuvNewcastle
(16,845 posts)The good things that the party has done, such as the economic policies of the Roosevelt era and the Civil Rights movement, are in the past. Now the party is being controlled by people who would have been Republicans 40 years ago. I'm over 40, but I care about the issues surrounding the Drug War as well. I don't see how any good liberal could watch all this injustice and not be enraged. I think that the Democratic Party needs to find its purpose again. People aren't going to wait forever until the Democrats come around.
Telly Savalas
(9,841 posts)and I'd encourage fellow Fuck-Ron-Paulers to closely read and digest the OP before quickly dismissing it because the title of the thread rubs you the wrong way. You can try to argue the facts behind it, but it's foolish not to acknowledge that it illustrates the perceptions of a lot of folks.
It's a good argument/observation, and I think the next step is in train of thought is to answer the question of what do we as Democrats do in response to this.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)is one of his "important truths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149315
Here's another one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972
You know who wouldn't agree with him:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002117460
"As Elizabeth Warren says, "America's middle class has been hammered, squeezed and chipped at" for 31 years. "
She's right, and Ron Paul is a nut who doesn't give a shit about the middle class.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But refusal to acknowledge the plain truth of some of what he says is done at the Democrat's peril.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"But refusal to acknowledge the plain truth of some of what he says is done at the Democrat's peril. "
...it's propaganda
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002138632
arcane1
(38,613 posts)at least the Dems and Repubs still pretend. His ideas go beyond Friedman's wettest dreams.
Fuck Ron Paul and his cult.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)The President is also a candidate so you are either saying that you find Ron Paul more truthful than the President or your wording is a little careless.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'm saying that Ron Paul is telling certain truths that Obama is not.
And these truths are obvious and fundamental to working Americans.
think
(11,641 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)slay
(7,670 posts)n/t
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)There is nothing obvious about it all.
In fact he is saying exactly that but gaming to stay within the rules.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and for those who have difficulty grasping the obvious, it is explained even more obviously in post 15.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'm pretty tired of people putting words in my mouth.
If you can't win your case on the merits, then maybe you should rethink your position.
i hear ya Manny - your posts are consistently thoughtful and show how important it is to question those in power - even if those people happen to have a big (D) beside their name - instead of just blindly following along. i wish others were as open-minded.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)They don't. They're lies. Unmitigated lies. Ron Paul's shift to the center on Afghanistan tonight just proves it.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)That there are some Canadians who think Ron Paul is da bomb.
Think about that... Canadians. Until I point out that Ron Paul would destroy or decimate everything they hold important. Like healthcare, a tightly regulated bank system, gun control (handguns are illegal here, and we like it that way), legal abortions and gay marriage.
It seems that all they can see is pot legalization and anti-war messages, mixed in with a lot of meaningless words like "Liberty" and "Freedom".
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)All of the forgotten, invisible, never-spoken-of grunts, sailors and marines that have been
fighting how many wars, for how long?
How many revolving door deployments and re-deployments and re-deployments do
those men and women have to suffer through, until someone listens to what they're
trying to tell us?
...I was really surprised to see that -- on the "Open Secrets dot Org" -- tote board for
campaign contributions, while Romney's biggest contributors are ALL banksters -- R.P.'s
top 3 are the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy.
NO ---> he doesn't have Pentagon support, but that web site bundles contributors
according to their place of employment.
I put up a post today that immediately dropped out of sight, but the last link shows
the comparison between the Robotic One and looney old unka Ron. He may be a
horrible economic theorist. He is (unfortunately) an elderly, white Southerner and
represents some viewpoints that are (deservedly) long past their expiration date,
but on that one count, alone, I think he deserves some respect.
Check out the contributions. (Last link at the bottom is the head to head one.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149461
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)When they get home and find themselves unemployed, disabled, or homeless??? They then become a potential infringement on the right to not give a damn.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)they like Ron Paul this time. War, they are sick of it.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)If Ron Paul got into office. The war might be over (but, then, it would be anyway, since Obama has already made the move to remove troops from Afghanistan, some of which have already left, and committed to all troops having left by 2014) but the war at home would just be beginning.
The war on our environment: Ron Paul wants to close down almost every government agency, but first on his list is the Environmental Protection Agency. He thinks it just shouldn't exist. That's a war on the air we breathe and the water we drink. Lots of children would probably die.
The war on health care: Ron Paul wants to axe Medicare and Medicaid, as well as this newfangled universal health plan that has passed. He wants the glorious free market to take care of you. A lot of us, especially grandma, are gonna die in this war.
The war on our government: frankly, Ron Paul doesn't want much of a government at all. The free market will take care of everything; and when we have the gold standard back, it will be nirvana! Oh, make that a living hell, in a third-world country.
I don't really think Ron Paul is anti-war at all.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)The "War on Terror." It's never been declared or ratified by Congress.
After promising to close down Guantanamo, after not living up to the
hopes that he'd prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes, President
Obama has continued THAT war pretty much on schedule. The withdrawal
from Iraq had been negotiated by The Chimp. The timetable wasn't moved
up one day.
This is a war that respects no borders. Drone attacks that kill civilians have enraged
and disgusted and angered people all over the world. We don't see those film clips
on our nightly news.
But people living overseas -- and Americans serving overseas -- are all only too
familiar with the horror and sheer, utter wastefulness of all of it.
It's a sad commentary on all of us that only a very few Republicans or
Democrats have spoken out against the war profiteering corporations that
are in charge.
Most everyone here who's commented on the Ron Paul candidacy abhors his
views on environment, on health care and government, in general.
But who are you to say he has no right to represent his three largest
constituencies? His three largest donor groups are the U.S. Army, the
U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force. A whole bunch of small donations from very
many underpaid, over-worked (and nearly invisible) human beings. They're
on the front lines.
They deserve to be represented in our democratic process -- much more so
than the Daddy Warbucks "corporate persons" whose interests they serve --
and right now, based on their political donations -- looney unka Ron is their
candidate of choice.
Which isn't to say President Obama doesn't deserve more time, or a second
term, to do right by them. But that whole "War on Terror" project is supposed
to be a 30 Year Plan, and we're not even halfway there yet.
It's Hannibal's elephant in the room. Military spending and waste are as much
to blame for our economic woes as the 1%. They're inter-twined. These are
discussions we should be having, not dismissing out of hand, without giving
them any serious thought or honest analysis.
(edit for typo)
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)...fall outside of the purview of the Third Geneva Convention. Unmitigated, legal, targeted killing was born.
Meanwhile Obama did vote against it in the Senate: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259#position
But, because Ron Paul voted against it, one of 7 Republicans to do so he deserves more noise and favor: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll508.xml
Obama, of course, has done more targeted killing than any President, ever. I highly doubt Ron Paul wouldn't do the same.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)And your legalisms and specific points obscure the issue.
However bizarre some of his other views may be, when it comes
to opposition to "foreign entanglements" the gnarly little gnome from
Texas has been nothing but consistent.
Your last line -----> because Obama's done it, Ron Paul 'would do
the same' ------> must have been pulled straight out of your butt,
because there's no basis for it in reality.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)"Obama, of course, has done more targeted killing than any President, ever. I highly doubt Ron Paul wouldn't do the same."
I don't doubt he would end the drone war as practiced under the Transparency President.
Robb
(39,665 posts)... because they represent the largest proportion of his donors?
Would you like to reexamine that calculation on your own, or would you like someone else to so it?
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)Would you like to claim that he's getting official, Pentagon support?
Robb
(39,665 posts)...than other candidates?
If I run for president, and I garner 10 votes, and 9 of them are women, would you suggest I have more support of women than my opponents? 
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)Do you have any evidence to show that any other candidate has received more donations
from members of the military?
That's the question, not your hypothetical, 'small sample size' non-issue.
Given the authoritarian, hierarchical nature of the military -- and reporting on military issues,
as well -- most of the evidence is anecdotal. Troops overseas don't vote in primaries, they're
not available for exit polls, and they can't show up in uniform to express their support for
any candidate. Or they get censored. CNN shuts them down in mid-paragraph.
(Edit to add graphic, and disclaimer --------> Hey, I don't even want to think about having
to vote for Ron Paul, but 2 + 2 = 4. He has a legitimate constituency that is seriously
under-represented, and I think he deserves to be part of the national conversation on
our whole, woefully misguided 'war on terror.' Here's a graphic I just googled up....
it *is* from the Ron Paul website, but unless you have evidence to the contrary, I
think it is a valid indicator.)
Robb
(39,665 posts)Looking at your graphic, because Paul got more total dollars during a nine month period a year before the general election, the military supports him? How many people do you think are in the military? How many donated before that period? After? How much money is typically given during an election cycle?
Perhaps you can share more information from Ron Paul 2012.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)And what gives you the right to speak for "the military?"
Why is it so important to obscure valid data, by constant
repetition of the same meaningless, irrelevant questions?
You're coming back with "sampling size" quibbling, again,
like it's something fresh and conclusive and horribly
damning. Without any evidence, at all, to the contrary.
This originally started with a comparison of campaign
contributions. The Robotic One's biggest donor list:
1 Goldman Sachs $367,200
2 Credit Suisse Group $203,750
3 Morgan Stanley $199,800
4 HIG Capital $186,500
5 Barclays $157,750
vs
the Little Guy in the Too-Big-Suit's List:
1 US Army $24,503
2 US Air Force $23,335
3 US Navy $17,432
4 Mason Capital Management $14,000
5 Microsoft Corp $13,398
From:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/head2head.php?cand1=N00005906&cand2=N00000286&x=20&y=26
It still seems more than a little unfair to me that military industrialists, and all the Blackwater's and
Halliburton's have their lobbyists, and make their high-dollar contributions to politicians from both
political parties.
But the grunts and air men and sailors and marines that perform the actual "Warfare on Terrorism"
have to content themselves with making small donations to Looney Unka Ron.
Does that seem like a satisfactory state of affairs to you? Isn't that worth pointing out? Doesn't it
deserve some honest discussion?
Autumn
(45,082 posts)The problem is that they think he is. They are tired of sending their husbands off to Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows where next.
SixthSense
(829 posts)issue an unconditional full pardon for all person convicted of drug offenses
restore a million innocent people to their lives and families
He could do all this good with a stroke of a pen.
What is he waiting for?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)with respect to the drug policy, the endless wars, ...
brooklynite
(94,547 posts)There are certainly social libertarians, but they pale in comparison to the fiscal libertarians. Unless President Obama is prepared to eliminate $500 billion in spending on his own, they'll stick with Ron Paul.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)...whether you're going to do anything about it, or whether your plans will just screw things up further is the catch.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)need I put the appropriate emoticon here?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... the Democratic Party would be wise to note this fact.
"Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right."
---George Lakoff
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... the Democrats in Washington have been moving right for three decades.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Obviously, to regain a majority we must elect more progressives. If we don't we will merely be reinstating right wing policies.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... do most Dems in the House belong to the Progressive Caucus? That would be great, but is it so?
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)83 progressives, plus 122 New Democrats and Blue Dogs.
However, many New Democrats vote with the progressives.
But it still goes without saying. In 2010 we lost 28 Blue Dogs, ergo, the overall Democratic makeup of the Congress is "more progressive."
The progressives do, however, make the largest non-party caucus in Congress (effectively made up entirely of Democrats).
83 CPC (Congressional Progressive Congress).
59 NDC (New Democratic Coalition).
26 Blue Dogs (Blue Dog Coalition), down from 54.
The Blue Dogs bloc vote with Republicans 90% of the time on military and economic issues (and civil rights issues), not necessarily social issues (which can be civil rights issues but not always).
But in the end progressives hold the single largest non-party caucus in Congress, and it only would take, say, 20 of them (plus, a compromising 10 New Dems to be realistic, since American's aren't super progressive) to take us over.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... than they think they are.
"Progressive" was also recently reported to be the most favorable political label in common use.
That said, I don't think "new Dems" are very progressive. I really like Grijalva and Ellison. More should get on board with their Progressive Caucus.
Signed: old white guy with all the stereotypes that make politicians think I'd be a conservative. It just ain't true anymore.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Labels do matter, but their use or non-use is not determinative.
Look at their actions, not their labels or their absence of labels.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)It's all about the money.
We don't have enough money to buy their loyalty.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/us/politics/ron-paul-finishes-second-in-new-hampshire-republican-primary.html
Any stick will do to beat a dog, but it might be a good idea to first consider why dogs are affectionately known as "man's best friend."
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Unlike a hell of a lot of people.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)him--in a failed attempt to show he's really a good guy--to tell the truth about a taboo subject: appalling six-to-one racial disparities in the criminal justice system. See the recent GD thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002137460 .
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)“Ron Paul’s is actually spectacular and he’s got the track record to back it up. He wants to cut a trillion dollars right off the bat and then cut some more going further. He wants to get rid of five agencies. He wants to get rid of corporate subsidies. He wants to get rid of a lot of foreign aid. It’s very impressive, what he’s got, and I think he means it.”
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/10/club-for-growth-ron-pauls-economic-plan-spectacular/
Truthiness!
Paul signed Grover Norquist's pledge.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/120111-federalpledgesigners.pdf
He signed it in 2008 too: http://www.atr.org/rep-ron-paul-signs-presidential-taxpayer-a1489
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I am delighted that someone is in the National Spotlight pointing out all the Elephants in the Room:
*The Failed, Racist, and crushingly expensive WAR on Drugs
*The Insanity of a War on Terror
*The inevitable disaster of attempting to maintain our Empire
*The growing Police State in the "Homeland" (that word alone should scare every thinking American)
*The Continual Erosion of the Bill of Rights
*The threat to our democracy of an expanding and ever more powerful Unitary Executive
*The insidiousness of the Patriot Act & the NDAA
*The Out of Control Military Spending
Nut or Not,
Ron Paul is absolutely correct in his stand on the above issues,
and I am GLAD somebody is forcing these issues into the National Consciousness,
because gawd knows that the leadership of both dominant political parties aren't going to mention them
because both Parties essentially AGREE on the above issues.
My prayer is that these issues gain enough traction to forced the Democratic Party leadership to at least acknowledge these issues as national problems.
Nobody should vote FOR Ron Paul.
Every Liberal Democrat should pick up these issues and demand that our Party Leadership address them.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)is what I have a problem with.
