General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy son, whose first-ever vote was for Obama, now thinks Ron Paul looks better.
Wow. This is how badly Obama has undercut his most fervent supporters. My kid grew up under endless Bush wars and corruption and fear-mongering and a constantly nose-diving economy, and he really looked at Obama as a serious change agent. But that's gone now. He's posting on FB about military detention of US citizens, he's watching the banksters light their cigars with $100 bills while he faces down his student loans, he's horrified at the police-state tactics used to break up peaceful OWS protests, and he asks "how is this change?"
I remind him that the only reason he has health insurance right now is because President Obama made it so that he could be covered under my insurance. I remind him of the 400,000-750,000 jobs a month lost under Bush, and I remind him that it wasn't Obama that drained the treasury via tax cuts and TARP. I remind him that while I, too, am less than thrilled with the Obama administration overall, he should try to imagine what would happen if we gave everything back to the very people who created the mess he voted to change. How could that be better?
I'm not sure it's sinking in, though. He's still seeing the gross injustices of "the system," and not a whole lot of return on the investment of his vote. And he hears Ron Paul make a few very good points.
What he doesn't see (and I'm trying to help him out without coming across as Dad telling him how to vote) are the freight cars full of crazy-talk that make up the Ron Paul train. I gotta admit, he sounds good compared to the rest of the clowns in the car, but that's like saying syphillis is more pleasant than gonorrhea. It just makes me so sad to see a young person, involved and interested, so quickly turned off and disgusted.
I can't wait for this morning's Chris Hayes segment about Paul to make it to YouTube. He needs to see it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I have very bifurcated feelings about him ... but, Ron Paul ... ?
Hopefully, he'll look a little deeper into the cess pool that is Ron Paul ... despite his (obvious extreme) disappointment in Obama.
Atman
(31,464 posts)You gotta admit, his views are like no other's in this race. Totally homogenous on the GOP side. Many aspects of the current administration appear to be just a continuation of the previous travesty. Ron Paul gets the sound bites out there that actually represent a different way. It's the stuff he espouses that doesn't make the news that is scary. He's no Republican. He's a whole different breed, and I think that is the attraction. He comes across to many as counter to the status quo, but I think there has been precious little analysis of what that actually means in terms of policy. Ron Paul is extreme as it gets, even if he does make a few salient points every now and then.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)That is what makes him so frightening ... he's not a moron (Palin, Bachman, Perry) ... my response to purported liberals is to look beneath the surface ... if one is liberal (and I don't deny that a lot of liberals have been temporarily charmed).
One doesn't need to look too deep to see that Paul's agenda is frightening ... he's a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist .... and a true believer in Spencerian Darwinism.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)But I'm not sure Paul deserves all those labels.
Tikki
(15,140 posts)enough for me to not vote for Ron Paul.
Tikki
more than one is true...
newspeak
(4,847 posts)how does he feel about halliburton, koch brothers and global corporations running his life? paul believes in the free market fairy--too big to fail corporations don't die even if they murder thousands of people or destroy livelihoods. I also love regulation, especially when it comes to eating food, drinking water and breathing clean air. Yeah, paul's corporate friends would have an unfettered field day!
Atman
(31,464 posts)I'll be sure he gets plenty of info on Paul in time to make an informed decision.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)ellisonz
(27,776 posts)The Paulites are severely confused. Time for an intervention...
Atman
(31,464 posts)We just happened to be talking about the candidates the other night and he mentioned that he didn't think Paul sounded all that bad. I told him he needed to check him out further, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. He just doesn't think Obama has lived up to his promises snd wishes thete was an alternative. I'm trying to make sure he still votes and doesn't just say screw it and stay home.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It seems he is becoming very popular with the youngsters from what they say
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Oct. 9, 1998 HR 3150 Bankruptcy Reform bill Conference Report Adopted - House
(300 - 125) Yea
March 17, 1999 HR 975 Steel Import Limitation bill Bill Passed - House
(289 - 141) Nay
May 19, 1999 HR 1654 NASA Authorization bill Bill Passed - House
(259 - 168) Nay
Nov. 3, 2011 H Amdt 849 Requires Public Disclosure of Bonuses and Golden Parachute Arrangements Amendment Adopted - House
(190 - 234) Nay
Nov. 3, 2011 H Amdt 853 Requires Crowdfunding Intermediaries to Disclose Methods of Compensation to Investors Amendment Rejected - House
(189 - 234) Nay
Oct. 6, 2011 HR 2681 Delays EPA Emissions Regulations for Cement Manufacturers Bill Passed - House
(262 - 161) Yea
July 13, 2011 HR 2018 Amending Clean Water Laws Bill Passed - House
(239 - 184) Yea
Shoe Horn
(302 posts)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
Rectangle
(667 posts)So, how are you going to pay for your education without
federal student loans??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/ron-paul-student-loans_n_1027276.html
Ron Paul's Answer: You're at the mercy of the Big Banksters.
and/or You're on your own!!
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I may have bifurcated feelings about Obama ... but my feelings are clear about Paul ... he's insane
SmellyFeet
(162 posts)Trying to please everyone in politics ultimately pleases no one.
Educate your son on Ron Paul. It shouldn't be hard.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I suppose (and I don't want to insult the poster's son; I've seen many young people first getting into politics be confused like this) this young person had a misperception of what he thought Obama was, or what he would or could do. It just sounded "cool" at 18. And then he was told that it wasn't cool, and was fed distortions and hyperbole by the Firedog lake charlatans and such. Now he has an equally erroneous misperception of some rainbow he thinks Ron Paul can provide.
Do you honestly think someone who falls for Ron Paul has the critical skills to also accurately asses the political pluses and minuses of an Obama? Think about it.
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)moronic, stupid, dope-smoking immature thinkers will really get them to come to the polls. The only description you missed was unclean.
I live among these kids. to motivate them we need to give them something to move toward - something to vote FOR. Conservative Democratic policies have betrayed this generation's hope. I don't know if we'll be able to get it back.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Your hyperbolic, distorted response is proof of the low level of discussion and thinking here.
Show me where I said that anyone was moronic or dope-smoking. YOU completely made that up. And you're trying to make it sound like those were my thoughts. They absolutely were not. And nothing that I wrote in my post would support such a conclusion.
When I mentioned distortions and hyperboles, you are the perfect example. You took my words and twisted them into a caricature of something that does not exist in reality. I rest my case.
pscot
(21,044 posts)that pretty much anything anyone says is likely to "prove" your point?
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)insulting.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)You should consider apologizing to Atman for suggesting his son must not be very bright.
None of the real-life people I have met who like Ron Paul "lack critical thinking skills". That is way out of line for you to suggest that. Ron Paul is the only candidate who doesn't represent more-of-the same, continuation of status quo.
You insult their reasoning because you don't understand the way they think.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Not to play devil's advocate too hard but wisdom and intelligence aren't the same. Kids fall for all kinds of things, including the packaging of Ron Paul as "different" somehow. But a long look at his positions indicates that Paul is a "different kind of the same".
A person with critical thinking skills will see this, those who either don't have them or aren't exercising them may buy this salesmanship.
The "real-life" people I've met who like Ron Paul are either people who think neoconservatism hasn't gone far enough (if you can believe that) and should dismantle government entirely, or who aren't much for critical thinking. Most often, they're only thought is "gubmint is teh emeny" and Ron Paul represents this view to the greatest degree in the current crop of candidates.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)But to dismiss someone's intelligence or their critical thought process just because they might be inclined to support Ron Paul is foolish, in itself.
Can you understand why people say to themselves "gubmint is teh enemy?" at least? Congress has a 14% approval rating, just a little reminder. Am I saying I agree....no, of course not! But that doesn't mean they are stupid voters, at all. Criticizing their mental acuity is just missing the point.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)The overarching political march in this country is to predict the failure of government in all forms, then elect people likely to deliver that outcome. In fact the Republican party has made it its mission to dismantle the government by pointing to its incompetency (which they helped to bring about).
It's not that they've been quiet about it either. In fact, Grover Norquist has stated this intention time and time again.
What am I supposed to think about a person who ignores this and the fact that Ron Paul is very similar?
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)could not even make such an assesment with a gun to their heads so let's not play the privileged position game.
Kids "fall" for all kinds of shit, and grow from it, it is also true that falling for some shit is required to support any politician. I would argue a lot of shit in this day and age would have to be ignored. The choices are poor and trending downward.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)The poster above is absolutely correct in stating that it is Obama's fault for being a centrist. He clearly DID NOT RUN as a centrist.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)He said he would not be able to accomplish everything, and that it would take time. You apparently didn't listen.
On the other hand, even if this young person did feel let down, that explains nothing about falling for a far more heinous character in the person of Ron Paul. No one is a "victim" of that, and no one "made" him do it: it is quite clear that Ron Paul is not a progressive of any sort whatsoever, but a far-right ideologue with a right-wing libertarian perspective. Did Obama drive anyone to accept that? No, you cannot blame anyone but those who buy into it. There are other options to embrace. Sorry to be harsh. But my main point is that the OP wishes to blame the president for his son thinking about embracing Ron Paul. He is free to reject Obama, but it is sheer lunacy to believe that it is Obama's fault that he is thinking about Paul.
My sympathies are with the OP. I'm sure he's trying as hard as possible to convince him that this is not a good idea. But I am not sympathetic to the idea that he believes the president "did" this to his son. I'm trying to be honest. We all have kids who have made poor decisions at one time or another.
Back in 2004 I was canvassing during the presidential primaries in New Hampshire. We were sent to a working class neighborhood to knock on doors. And one man came to the door and told us he wasn't voting, that none of these politicians was going to solve his problem. What, we inquired, was the problem he was interested in? "My son won't stop listening to rap music, and he is failing in school!" the man replied, angrily. We were sympathetic but tried to explain to him that, indeed, no candidate could help him with that: a president couldn't ban rap music. But we tried to turn the conversation around to issues of education, and help he might get ...
At any rate, he calmed down, and we hoped we had helped him a bit. Two doors down we knocked on another man's door. He said, "I'm not going to vote! Go away. None of these politicians can help me!" Jesus, we though, what now? The man explained that his wife had left him and taken his three-year-old son, and that he wasn't able to see him very often. That's when we just said, "We hope it works out for you," and quietly left. I ended the day feeling very sad about the confusion of the people that day. They want help that no politician can give them. And they want to blame politicians when things aren't going quite right. I believe that was what was happening here. It's perfectly legitimate for the OP to worry that his son is considering something like voting for Ron Paul. But it is not legitimate to blame this irrational decision on the president.
That is all. Finis.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... I was dumb enough to believe Obama was a progressive who would enact progressive policies. I'm feeling pretty stupid now.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)If it were up to Ron Paul he'd roll back minimum wage, social security, workforce protections (OSHA), all private property regulations, etc etc etc... If he doesn't mind working 14 hour days for 2$/day while wondering if the equipment he's using will kill him, he should certainly vote Ron Paul.
I'd encourage him to research Libertarian ideology and ask him if he thinks it actually makes any sense. Sure not going to jail for having a blunt would be awesome, but is it worth disbanding the EPA and letting coal plants dump as much pollution into the air as they'd like. Or how about dumping the DoE and their oversight of the nuclear plants. Do we really want to trust the free market with our very ability to exist?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)preserving habeas corpus without tinkering with it endlessly as has been the case since 2001). However, on other civil liberties like reproductive choice (a la Roe v. Wade), Paul flat out sucks.
The OP might ask his son how he feels about overturning a woman's right to choose, a distinct possibility in a Paul administration that would select one or more Supreme Court justices.
Johonny
(26,179 posts)Ron Paul is a conservative. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, privatize public education, abolish Social Security, kill Medicare, re-establish DADT, eliminate public housing, abolish federal student loans, kill Planned Parenthood, end the Departments of Energy and Education and the EPA, abolish the minimum wage, end affirmative action, disagrees with equal pay for women, and wants to end FEMA.
Besides that he's very appealing to liberals 
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)to overturn established laws and precedents to return us to some supposed pre-Wilsonian 'Golden Age' of isolationism and states' rights.
When Paul is correct on a certain issue (like reigning in American imperial ambitions), a little digging reveals that he's right for the wrong reasons. I suppose that's preferable to being flat-out wrong, but it should still give any thinking person pause.
newspeak
(4,847 posts)it was golden for the robber barons, but not for many of the people.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)distinguish reactionary myth-making from historical reality.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)And likely because he believes abortion to be murder. Even then I suspect he'd leave the issue up to the states.
It's funny actually, I get into it with libertarians on another discussion board on occasion. They disagree with things like the income tax amendment but get pissed at me when I question their issue with it. After all, they followed every step to change the constitution that you wanted them to take, so what's your problem with it? It's a stupid ideology, incapable of actually following what it preaches. More stereotypical paternalist BS. The idea that we shouldn't try to control people or force them to do stuff is cool, but they don't seem to like it very much when they don't do things there own way.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You are either speaking from a position of irony or complete absence of understanding with that comment.
He is a racist homophobe. Not "just a bit," either. His published statements rise to the level of hate speech.
Salient article, also posted elsewhere in this thread--a "must-read" for anyone who suggests Paul is a civil libertarian: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html
*Let's be clear, now--just in case someone doesn't quite "get it," those are Paul's assessments, not mine.
Response to Atman (Original post)
Post removed
41mag
(31 posts)Someone finally describes Obama as a con-artist, for that is exactly what he is.
kath
(10,565 posts)Trojan Horse is an apt term as well.
FDR and the Democrats of yore (my union-organizer grandfathers among them) roll in their graves that such a man calls himself a "Democrat".
We were conned, big time.
CrispyQ
(40,970 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)
To the OP, have your son investigate Paul more thoroughly, & tell him not to give up on liberals. There are a lot of good liberals out there fighting for congressional seats - Grayson, Warren, Kucinich & many more. This is where my 2012 contribuions will go, & of course to support local issues. In Colorado, that ugly fetus right's bill rears it's head every other election or so. These are issues & people worth focusing on & supporting.
on edit: I can't believe your post was hidden. Honestly, if people can't handle the little bit of truth you said very aptly in your post they should stay off the internet. The DU jury system sucks.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)is that Paul is gaining support from people who would vote Democratic for President, if we had a President who actually stood for the people. Paul has always had a small base of hardcore libertarians who support him, but that is NOT who his new surge represents.
His new surge represents ordinary people who are frustrated and angry that the two major parties have utterly betrayed and abandoned them to fellate the banks and corporations. They have had enough, and they are willing to overlook some of Paul's crazier positions to send a message about taking on the war machine and the criminal banking system we have in place. They could be Democrats, and many of them probably would RATHER be Democrats, if there were a Democrat taking their concerns seriously.
*Most* Americans want to preserve social safety nets. That is true in poll after poll, across party lines. If we had a Democratic candidate who was sincere about cutting back the military industrial complex, fighting for the people instead of the banks, AND preserving the social safety nets, a lot of Ron Paul's support would vanish, and that Democratic candidate could win in a landslide.
gateley
(62,683 posts)frustrated with the current crop of hopefuls.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You're right.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)It is alarming to see that so much that is *wrong* with Ron Paul is being overlooked because of his stance on the Patriot Act (and related legislation), foreign wars and the Federal Reserve.
Education, Minority Rights, Social Safety Net, etc., etc. ... forget about it.
Although I disagree with the conclusion vehemently, I understand. They believe that fixing the fundamentals may provide a path to fix the rest of it.
I will continue to discuss Paul's horrible worldview with my daughter, but the Democratic party would do well to be aware.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the moral high ground on those issues lately. It gets very hard to defend Dems when they aren't fighting these battles tooth and nail themselves.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)My daughter is a direct beneficiary. It may not be fine enough, but we have one. That is not an unimportant distinction between Obama and Paul.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'm not sure why fellow Dems are upset why many people think the President should be more staunchly defending these things. Are we trying to make the Paul supporters look sane now?
"we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy" or, at least I feel I do.
newspeak
(4,847 posts)and being a woman, I could not consciously vote for someone like paul.
thatgemguy
(506 posts)I'm amazed how many are supporting Ron Paul. It's the message, and most young people aren't sophisitcated enough to see through it. Face it, most have been brainwashed all of their lives with the Reagan meme that government is bad. In many ways our side has failed to alter this message. I try to counter their arguments, but find it difficult to get through all of the decades of bullshit and hate. We have got to work harder to get our message of caring and compassion out.
CrispyQ
(40,970 posts)taxing the rich is bad.
I completely agree about getting the message of caring & compassion out there, but I don't think thatthat is the message of the current Democratic Party.
patrice
(47,992 posts)against on this issue. They also regard it, including Hemp, as a "free market" opportunity.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)But mostly I'm hearing that they WILL NOT VOTE in this election. But I get the feeling that if they would, it could very well be for Ron Paul. And this new detention crap law that Obama has decided to sign has EVERYONE screaming!!
At our meeting yesterday it was very volatile and I just listened as almost to a person they tore Obama apart. That's not to say that I myself am not completely exasperated with him, but I would NEVER vote for Paul!
Truth be told, I have no idea WHAT TO DO NOW!! Get in bed and pull the covers over my head! I abhor what is happening!
alp227
(33,283 posts)They blame the government for their high student loans or not being able to get a job without listening to trash talk radio or seeing Republican campaign ads.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)until I learned More about him and the severe consequences to America If he actually does what he wants to do. Then there is this:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/07/10-quotes-that-make-ron-paul-sound-racist/
http://www.realchange.org/ronpaul.htm
Radical Views:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_kuy_071115_ron_paul_s_radical_v.htm
http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/09/ron-pauls-radical-vision
His talking points Sounds Great for a lot of issues that are important to us-He Wants to/Needs to Appeal to the Left-but it's the Rest of what he says/doesn't say that should scare the living crap out of all of us.
Remember, he would let a 31 year old Die if he/she had No ins and was injured or stricken with illness.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)This doesn't show "how badly Obama has undercut his most fervent supporters." This shows how feeble the thinking of many young people is, and how easily they are influenced by the charlatans offering up blather (I speak here both of Ron Paul and of the hardcore anti-Obama ranters).
You're going to blame Obama because of the poor thought processes of your young adult son? (I assume he's around 21 or 22 now). That's really rich.
DerekG
(2,935 posts)They expected to see a moral vision, and Mr. Hope n' Change rewarded them with more drone attacks, bailouts and bullshit health-care bills.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)That's rich.
MrTriumph
(1,720 posts)Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson would have called it what it was: A boon to insurers with comparitively little for everyday Americans.
Once passed, Newt made cash selling advice on how to game the system.
Atman
(31,464 posts)He's got insurance because of Obama, not because of the insurance companies. In his current state if employment (not), we'd be paying for his doctor visits anyway, cash. I'm also fortunate to have a good employer who covers my wife and son, too. That helps a lot.
patrice
(47,992 posts)What more well-healed industry to pay for a plethora of sock-puppets and assorted trolls than "Health" "Care" Insurance?
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)Republicans sided with you in demanding the company "rot on the vine" to destroy the unions, but Obama went right past them and saved the company, my pension, and my dignity. If Republicans have their way, I'll need that "bullshit health care bill" as much as anyone soon.
And quit crying about the drone attacks as if you feel so deeply for the Taliban:
http://paktribune.com/news/5-Taliban-commanders-killed-in-US-drone-attack-244687.html
You didn't get change? Here's some change in easy to understand pictures:
This is a Democratic president signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act that protects women in the workplace:
This is a Republican president signing a bill that restricts certain abortion procedures:
People's memory is shorter than Newt's dick.
alp227
(33,283 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)'Nuff said.
Atman
(31,464 posts)He's 23, earned his BS in two years (didn't start college until 20), and I think his thought processes are pretty damned good. But he's disillusioned, not a moron. Read some of the other posts in this thread and maybe you'll understand why he's not alone. Or maybe you won't...maybe your thought processes aren't so sharp.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Many young people fall into this trap. His idealism for Obama was probably just as unthought out as his newfound penchant for Ron Paul.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)Yes it was insulting.
gateley
(62,683 posts)differ from ours, and that's where we learn about the man. I liked what I heard (sound bites) before the 2008 election and was trying to pay attention to the candidates for the first time in my life (that's how I found DU). Once I learned about him, my interest of course died.
Maybe if your son delves a little further into Paul's background and beliefs?
Paul is a wonderful candidate if you're a white racist who hates the government. Can't see how he'd appeal to anyone else if they really knew who he was. Don't you think?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Yep, those folks at OWS are all a bunch of easily mislead morons, definitely! 
What crap. If you want to see people that are easily mislead, look at the knee-jerk Obama supporters.
Orangepeel
(13,980 posts)Ron Paul's economic philosophy is Darwinian.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)claiming there was a hole in your racquet when you lost your match. Blaming your glove for the flies you failed to catch. That is it is always a losing tactic, even when it is accurate.
SOS
(7,048 posts)2008 election results by age-
18-29: 66% for Obama, 32% for McCain
Over 60: 51% for McCain, 47% for Obama
When it comes to feeble thinking (and voting for old reactionary morons),
the 60+ crowd has the market cornered.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html
frazzled
(18,402 posts)thinking that Obama was promising some sort of immediate uptopia. He didn't, and that's why they are so "disappointed" now. It's the thinking, not the voting.
Charronxyz
(119 posts)"Thinking that Obama was promising some sort of immediate utopia."
You mean like closing gitmo within a year, or repeal the Bush tax cut for the rich and I won't mention all the other broken promises...
Skittles
(171,716 posts)OMG 
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Your name-calling is useless and it's getting to be a habit among the right-wing Dems
frazzled
(18,402 posts)THose who seem to be most disappointed are those who seemed to think he was promising a rose garden and was, I don't know, the next coming of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Karl Marx put together. Most of us never thought that.
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)He needs to understand thirty years of this country's right-ward lurching cannot be changed overnight, it will take a generation.
Paul would move this country directly to corporate control if he could, your civil liberties would be what thye corporations say they should be.
Smoke dope? Sure, go ahead, that will make up for breathing poisonous air and drinking tainted water, what a deal.
Atman
(31,464 posts)BTW, it's a bit condescending to assume his views are about smoking dope and not, as I explained in my op, about what he sees as the failings of Obama to live up to the promises he made.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)see the part of Paul's positions they want to see.
I don't know know or care if one does or doesn't smoke pot, I see the faux civil liberties dangled to Paulistas as bait in order to ignore the corporatist agenda Paul actually wants implemented.
Your son also needs to understand there are three *equal* branches of government, and how controlling two of them controls how this nation is governed.
Ron Paul, if elected, would get none of his ridiculous agenda passed into law with a Democratic legislature, killing the EPA for instance.
Would your son then say Paul didn't keep his promises?
tsuki
(11,994 posts)I agreed that I liked Paul's foreign policy, but domestically, we'd need a whole different President. When son zeroed in on Paul's domestic agenda, he changed his mind.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The media is doing its best to tell the far right that Obama is a socialist, while simultaneously telling the far left that Obama is a Fascist.
Paul's racism is well know, see what he thinks about that.
Paul wants to kill the EPA, the FDA, the Department of Energy, Department of Education, Medicare, Social Security, and all other social programs. He thinks you should have total freedom, unless you are a woman with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy (even oif your life is in danger). He'd roll back all civil rights legislation, and workplace safety protections.
He does support making Marijuana legal.
The dude is a nutcase.
The good news is that Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the GOP primary. Never happen. Your son will have to find some one else to vote for ... and the other GOP choices are just as insane ... but none of them support legalizing pot.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Ron Paul is very right wing libertarian. Ron Paul has very anti gay views as well. He is against the Civil Rights Act. He is not anti-war, he is a right wing isolationist. He is anti-women, with his views on abortion (even in cases of rape). Essentially, if your son is more liberal then Ron Paul then he is just ignorant. Sorry.
SixthSense
(829 posts)that's what makes him attractive to young people
For example, he's the only candidate under which we can reasonably expect the war machine to be pulled back. If you're a young man, things like the possibility of being drafted weigh on your mind.
Also he seems to be the only one to correctly point out the insidious nature of the Federal Reserve.
The real crime here is that no other candidate is really anti-war, and no other candidate focuses on the corrupt axis of big money and government which is primarily responsible for grinding our standard of living into the dirt.
If a healthy young person can't afford to insure his own health, the system is badly broken - young healthy people are the cheapest to insure by a very large margin. Being allowed to temporarily continue on his parents' plan doesn't help that young person establish himself as an adult; on the contrary it reinforces how steep the climb to independence is for him.
Young people want to emerge from childhood into adulthood. Right now the obstacles in their path, from lack of jobs to obscene student debts to jacked up prices in other key sectors (housing, health), are daunting, to say the least. They are going to look to whoever provides them with a vision of a world in which they can establish real independence and start living as adults.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)And you're correct, nobody else is saying it. And it seems she'll give up a lot in favor of that.
Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #59)
Post removed
mainer
(12,554 posts)He hated Bush. Now he's a Ron Paul supporter. He's also feeling some frustration with the economy, as he works extremely hard, is extremely frugal and he tells me that many of his neighbors are on public assistance and they have iPhones and snowmobiles. He lives in another state, so I can't debate him on that latter point since I don't know his neighborhood.
Response to Atman (Original post)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)That about sums up the situation.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)any day of the week. Herpes, Hepatitis and HIV are 'deal breakers' for me.
boxman15
(1,033 posts)I know a lot of young libertarians that voted for Obama because of his antiwar stance and his potentially pro-pot stance.
Ron Paul is more attractive to libertarians because, well, he is one. Obama's "big government" programs don't resonate well with libertarians, but Paul's economic policies do.
I'm not going to say your son is uneducated like some others are. I'm sure he's very smart. Young people today are largely liberal or libertarian. (Conservatism in its current state will die out soon.)
Obama had such good numbers among young people because libertarians voted for him too. He probably won't have that luxury this time. Your son is a good example of that.
mainer
(12,554 posts)That's why many voted for Obama, because people like Sarah Palin and the GOP's rah-rah Christianity scared them away.
But now we get down to another fundamental divide -- the role of government in peoples' lives. And the truth is, many hardworking young people feel that Social Security and Medicare may not be there for them, and they resent the tax burdens placed on their shoulders because they doubt the safety net will be there for them.
alp227
(33,283 posts)That's my theory of why certain low-info 20-somethings get attracted to "limited government", they probably snuck out after midnight and broke all the rules in high school.
mulsh
(2,959 posts)Paul is a very scary person indeed. A couple of stances on issues that I agree with (war for instance) would never allow me to support a vile religious fundamentalist like Paul.
think
(11,641 posts)The younger generation sees through the bullshit and Ron Paul is willing to speak truth to power while the Democrats are willing to be "Republican light" and continue with the status quo.
It is time to close more overseas military bases and quit this corporate welfare for corporations who are exporting our jobs to third world countries. Our military is used to prop up corrupt governments that allow these corporations to exploit the labor, pollute the land, and pay less taxes while ignoring the social welfare and infrastructure of those countries.
Ron Paul may have many detractors but as long as the Dems don't speak out against the excess of our military spending Ron Paul's popularity will only grow...
jwirr
(39,215 posts)buck the MIC if he was elected and he knows he will never get a bill to legalize marijuana through. He is no different than the others.
think
(11,641 posts)There are many issues you can disagree with RP on but in regards to the military and the Iraq war Ron Paul isn't a chicken hawk. George Bush got us into a preemptive war based on lies and the Dems are too weak to say it and many Dems approved this atrocious act.
Does anyone still believe we had the right to declare war on Iraq? Seriously...
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)against Operation Shocking and Awful at a time when it was somewhat politically risky to do so. Obama in office has been a whole other matter, a source of considerable discontent for many.
You're right though about Paul not being a chicken hawk. He came of age during a time of universal military conscription, was drafted and served honorably, unlike "Other Priorities" Cheney.
think
(11,641 posts)I just wish he'd remind people of this and continue to reduce the size and scope of our military. The military budget is the elephant in the room and as long as Dems ignore it I will applaud anyone who will mention the damn elephant!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)their family economically and have yet to live in the real world. That is my guess from observing my grandson. He lives with me (share rent but I often end up paying more than him), blames me when he spends money like a drunken sailor (bought $300 worth of clothes and a guitar) and is suddenly broke. Plays games all night, goes to school on the internet, has parents who run to his rescue whenever he whines and then thinks he knows how to run the world when he cannot even run his own life.
When asked why he is for Paul, he says he does not want to lose his freedoms. We have told him to research the man because he does not stand for freedoms when he wants to cut all the government programs that protect people. No dice - some idiot on one of his games said so and thus it is true.
Thank God he is not even registered to vote.
dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)You might also conclude that everyone his age is male.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Each person will always have the resources and the ability to support themselves and their immediate family, and never be beholden to nobody else for anything. Ever.
THE WORLD DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
otohara
(24,135 posts)Have him read this - Ron Paul is not as cool as the kids think.
The GOP would never work with Paul
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html
Monty22001
(31 posts)I'd much rather have Newt!
jimlup
(8,010 posts)But perhaps one could argue that Obama is as well. Though Obama's insanity is the mainstream insanity so it is allowed.
Frankly I do think we have to make the case that Obama is the lessor evil in today's situation. It is a hard case to make and I understand your son's objections.
Response to Atman (Original post)
Atman This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)that your son is "individuating" and wants to show he can be as thoughtful as the old man. My nephew was a republican because his parents were staunch democrats. Of course, he got older and is a democrat. I hope the UP segment makes YouTUbe too, cause it will show your son from the outside that his old man is pretty smart after all.
B2G
(9,766 posts)She volunteered for Obama last time. This year, it's all about Ron Paul.
I'm truly worried about what a 3rd party run would look like. My gut feeling is that it would hurt Obama worse that the Repubs.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)aware of that?
B2G
(9,766 posts)Her response is that Roe v Wade will never be overturned...that there's no putting that horse back in the barn.
It's his stance on drugs, wars and limited government that are winning her over.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson if she thinks Supreme Court decisions are never reversed.
Even if Roe v. Wade were never overturned, it might be so watered down as to be unavailable for all practical purposes if and when your daughter should ever require its protections.
My wife says a woman who supports Paul is like a Jew for Hitler or a Black for Jim Crow.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)... without getting posts deleted or wind up getting banned.
A Ron Paul would be limited by what he could pass because so much opposition in Congress exists to his agenda, and his refreshing honesty,ethical and honest nature is like a breath of fresh air to some feeling like they are drowning in a sea of untrustworthy politicians that bark like big dogs and whine ine toy dogs in office.
Obama has really pissed me off terminally with his gutting of basic Constitutional rights by pushing for indefinate detainment of Americans with no trial. I flat am sorry I voted for him.
But I could never say I'm voting for Dr. Paul in here because it is banned by the nature of this forum. Which I can live with because I respect a virtual community's rights to focus it's mission that way.
But if this question comes up in a thread like this, I am perfectly in my rights in giving you some food for though on this. Because if President Obama visited Eugene again I'd stay home, and I am a very very very political animal. But I'd go early to see Dr. Paul to be in a good spot in the crowd. I just hate much of his Libertarian agenda.
If Barack Obama was more trustworthy, it would be quite a different story.
think
(11,641 posts)what he brings to the Republican side of the debate and his staunch anti imperialistic stand. I'm about correct policy not political party. Although I stand with the Dems heavily I am not going to ignore it when they back bad policy.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)But I am glad I became a Pacific Green. I might say too that we have a toxic GOPer running against peter DeFazio who got too many votes last time around thus I will focus on doing grass roots work such as canvassing for my friend Pete whom I admire stoutly.
Alas in this forum out of respect, I will keep my November 2012 choice to myself. It is definitely a possibility I will just leave the presidential race part of the ballot blank and leave it as an under vote. Or I wouldn't post on this thread.
So this is just food for thought, because this is most certainly a healthy part of the discussion process the Democratic Party must do.
blm
(114,658 posts)claims to be concerned about 'our' freedoms.
His idea of freedom is to increase CORPORATIONS' freedoms to restrict OUR rights, while also supporting government control to restrict a family's right to their own PRIVATE reproductive decisions.
At some point you have to strip away the bullshit even from Ron Paul and make him accountable for the RESULTS of what he has actually said and done throughout his career. He may not believe in fascism, but, he certainly has helped carry its water often enough.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)had you seen him go head to head with Bachmann last Thursday on the issue of whether to attack Iran militarily. After Bachmann had rattled sabers in a very terrifying way, Paul basically told her she was 'crazy' in so many words at great cost to him among the base of likely Repuke voters. If anyone was the fascist in that little exchange, it certainly wasn't Paul. And Paul followed up in an appearance on one of the subsequent late-night talk shows where he said that Bachmann "hates all Muslims."
blm
(114,658 posts)the GOP faithfully on direct efforts to hand this nation over to the corporations....fascism. He is fine with corporations controlling our lives while at the very same time he wants government to control the reproductive choices of women and their families.
Paul would NEVER be able to address the reality of that 'bottom line' no matter how 'sincere' he tried to appear.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)agree with you pretty much whole-heartedly on Paul's true colors. I just found it interesting watching him and Bachmann go after one another. Her pro-war saber rattling seemed to play better with the crowd at the debate but I was struck by the feeling I had that Paul was not tacking in the wind of expedience, at least on the issues of militarism and imperialism. Quite interesting to watch.
blm
(114,658 posts)on ANYTHING, especially the RESULTS of his DECADES of service to the GOP and its controlling fascist elite.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)locked in the attic. In the midst of mostly insane paranoid rants, the crazy uncle will have an occasional lucid moment. Doesn't mean he isn't insane and therefore very dangerous if not kept locked in the attic most of the time
What will be hilarious is if Paul manages to pull off an upset win in Iowa. What are the Repukes going to do with their crazy uncle then?
blm
(114,658 posts)will favor an 'Independent' even if he is a completely fascist Republican. With their deep pockets and control of mainstream media they know they can rely on a good number of voters calling their lipsticked pig Shirley.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)But if you have better evidence than the vague innuendo I have seen, I am all ears.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)and I know there is extensive evidence he is not racist or homophobic.
I know how easy it is to paint a picture that is inaccurate on someone in this regard too I might add. For example, the late Hugo black was once in the KKK, but no one in their right mind thinks he was racist, or that President Obama is homophobic merely because of his poor choice for a religious speaker at his inauguration in 2009.
Recently Dr. Paul took Michele -- the loon -- Bachmann to task for her bigotry concerning Muslims. That is one recent example I know of that is fresh in many minds that point to a mindset that is very much not racist.
If David Duke was to run for POTUS the first thing the news media would focus on is his toxic racism. This is not even remotely on the radar in the news regarding Ron Paul. It is hard to take your contention very seriously with all due respect.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Credible links, please.
If you read the link I provided, you'd see the very issue of the failure of the MSM to address the Paul racism discussed.
Response to Ferret Annica (Reply #139)
freshstart This message was self-deleted by its author.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I am not a pretending Ron Paul supporter. I will refer to this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100228888#post1
as prior evidence.
I cannot tolerate him. For the record, I will be voting for Obama and encouraging my daughter to do the same.
Count yourself lucky if you haven't been exposed to the pro-Paul argument.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)my boys are very active, politically. So they have known about Paul for quite a while. So, yes, I am lucky. And, it's not like Paul advertises his racism in the debates, I guess. You have to dig a wee bit deeper.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) 
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)All it took was one bad acid trip about 40 years ago.
Last time I seen him about ten years ago he was walking down the street clutching a bible in front of him mumbling something to himself.
Hey, it happens.
Don
TBF
(36,669 posts)when 50% of the country is living in poverty, and the top 6 Walmart heirs have more money than 30% of the country ... why in the world would you be "so sad" to see your son "turned off and disgusted"? Your son is articulate and intelligent. He may be a bit fooled by the Paulites, but the anti-war stance of Paul is resonating with many. I am down in his district so I know what a mess he would be - he simply doesn't want to spend money on ANYTHING. Granted we wouldn't have wars, but we wouldn't have safety nets under him either.
Anyway, it sounds to me like your son is very engaged and trying to figure out how to deal with such a lousy system. For that I can only commend him, and you for raising him to have concrete analytical skills.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
BootinUp
(51,323 posts)G.O.P. Monetary Madness
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 15, 2011
Apparently the desperate search of Republicans for someone they can nominate not named Willard M. Romney continues. New polls suggest that in Iowa, at least, we have already passed peak Gingrich. Next up: Representative Ron Paul.
In a way, that makes sense. Mr. Romney isn’t trusted because he’s seen as someone who cynically takes whatever positions he thinks will advance his career — a charge that sticks because it’s true. Mr. Paul, by contrast, has been highly consistent. I bet you won’t find video clips from a few years back in which he says the opposite of what he’s saying now.
Unfortunately, Mr. Paul has maintained his consistency by ignoring reality, clinging to his ideology even as the facts have demonstrated that ideology’s wrongness. And, even more unfortunately, Paulist ideology now dominates a Republican Party that used to know better.
I’m not talking here about Mr. Paul’s antiwar views or his less well-known views on civil and reproductive rights, which would horrify liberals who think of him as a good guy. I’m talking, instead, about his views on economics.
Continued:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html?_r=1
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)he wants to help condemn thousands of women to injury and death.
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)bs rhetoric. However, his truth is wacky and cruel. But he is sincere about it. It's simplicity in his prescriptions offers making a complex world simple. It won't work, but most people don't recognize that a gold and/or silver standard is going to be disaster.
His appeal is much like Reagan's was. His simple world view offers fantasy solutions that people want and confirms their prejudices.
tranche
(929 posts)It's fine. The kid loves they way the guy talks. On some things, who wouldn't. People are desperate for big change, not the kind of change our system can deliver. He prefers Ron Paul right now just as some would prefer Bernie Sanders. He'll be voting for the best candidate available come 2012.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)He is fascinating to listen to. He is clearly very right about some issues like some matters of foreign policy – in fact more right than President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership when it comes to acknowledging the futility of an unsustainable global military empire.
Mr. Paul does offer a kind of utopian economic populism. In an era in which both parties have embraced to varying undying faith in globalization and so-called free markets that have produced catastrophic results, Mr. Paul’s optimistc idealism can seem like a breath of fresh air.
But when it comes to the reality of what happens if the country were to actually embrace his economics and his calls for virtually absolute deregulation – that is where he goes completely off the rails. As Mr. Krugman points out in an excellent article mentioned above http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html?_r=1
Mr. Paul’s prescription would completely shrink the money supply and would absolutely guarantee a great depression. Furthermore if we were to actually privatize virtually everything in the public sector as Mr. Paul suggest – and if we were to actually deregulate virtually everything anywhere near the levels Mr. Paul advocates our whole society would truly be ruled by the most extreme form of Social Darwinism. It would truly be a step into the darkness. For the past 30 years this approach has been already tried -albeit in much more moderate forms that what Mr. Paul would want and it has failed miserably. Imagine the consequences of this already failed policy taken to a far greater extreme that what even the right-wing of the Republican Party has already accomplished.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)Then I made the mistake of listening to everything else he said.
The more I worked out in the real world and saw firsthand how this entire capitalistic system that he was praising was acting even with the regulations they do have, I began to reject my free market view.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)In fact, it was the smart thing to do and the thing everyone SHOULD do. ESPECIALLY those who leans liberal who are drawn in by a select few of his statements.
It doesn't take much peeling of the onion to stink and make your eyes water.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)unionworks
(3,574 posts)Usually go like this - "Ron Paul is great because blah blah blah. Followed by a disclaimer- "I do not support Ron Paul". Then about 20% of the posters on said thread just happen to have a friend or relative who is a Paul supporter, "whose arguments I cannot refute". how's this - Ron Paul is an ugly rethug troll, as are his followers.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)and on, and on, and on, and on, and on. The guy is right of the TeaBaggers of economic policy and believe corporate America should own and run EVERYTHING. He needs to do MUCH more research.
MADem
(135,425 posts)dressing. That's usually what it boils down to in the 18-32 (and some older/perpetually immature) male demographic.
Ask Sonny how he feels about the guy's record after he's read this article and the links contained therein:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html
Not a question, really, of "Dad telling him how to vote." It's time for a slap across the back of the head (gently, not meant to harm, for the overly literal readers) followed by the question "Is this how I raised you? To cheerlead for a fucking bigot? Whassamatta you???"
A few enticing snippets for those who are too tired to click links, or whose pages load slowly:
...Around four years ago, James Kirchick reported a lengthy story delving into Paul’s worldview. As Kirchick writes, Paul comes out of an intellectual tradition called “paleolibertarianism,” which is a version of libertarianism heavily tinged with far-right cultural views. The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views.
....his “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”
Such views on race also inflected the newsletters’ commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa’s transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara”; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending “South African Holocaust.” …
The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?” Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to “poison the blood supply.” “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false.
If you raised the kid right, this kind of talk should appall him.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)if I got a buck for every former young Obama suporter that now thinks Paul is a good idea, I'd be pretty well off by now.
And it is not just the young.
THe GOP leadership will not, under any circumstances, allow Paul to get even close to the nomination, but if he decides to run for the Libertarians... that will split that vote down the middle.
Oh and on the surface Ron Paul looks like a great reformer on the side of the people. He does sound like a Populist. Most Paul supporters have not looked deeply into Ron Paul, 20 % rational, 80% crazee... and his son Rand is even worst.
mckara
(1,708 posts)Your son wants a systematic dismantling of the only voice available to citizens? We need to restrict the influence of money on governmental decision-making, not going in the opposite direction destroying government.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You leap from that to a grand generalization.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You have no idea how many kids and not so young I have heard now supporting Paul...
People are... disappointed. I know you may not want to hear this, but that is the truth. If I got a buck for each... I'd be doing quite well right now.
Oh and it has vey little to do with Ron Paul and all that hope and change... to quote an older voter... he feels conned.
certainot
(9,090 posts)and as a matter of fact there's one on every corner and stump in the country doing that all day long, and screaming the same about all liberals and obama, and how far does he expect obama to stick his neck out if we let that go on?
if he's pissed obama hasn't closed guantanamo ask him is he knows the local limbaugh station sells club gitmo t-shirts. if he likes college sports, ask him if he knows many of our universities endorse torture apologists and war sellers and climate denialists by broadcasting sports on those stations.
it's impossible to fairly evaluate obama while there is NO organized opposition to the right's best weapon- talk radio.
until there is, obama supporters, former and current, cannot say the collective 'left' ever got obama's back.
The Wielding Truth
(11,433 posts)We have to change the national middle which is almost impossible when right wing propaganda nonsense is all so many hear.
JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)Social Services, Dept of Education, and the Federal Reserve are all on the chopping block for a Ron Paul White House. (Really? Ron Paul thnks money can regulate itself without concern for greed?)
Just like any Republican, if you're already wealthy he'll be a great president. Your son must be quite comfortable to support Ron Paul. Congratulations.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Ron Paul has never adequately explained his newsletter, except later on to deny knowledge of it, despite evidence that he knew all about it:
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1996_1343749/campaign-96-u-s-house-newsletter-excerpts-offer-am.html
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)So, unless he runs 3rd party, these discussions are academic.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)We actually don't vote for candidates after one party has engaged in a 6 month orgy of hate filled lies.
I seriously doubt your son will have much doubt after a campaign in which both sides have been presented.
Right now its 7-8 nut jobs spreading lies and slapping each other on the back.
Be sure to Repost 9 months from now, I am guessing a different result unless your son has strong feelings about the Federal Reserve and taking the US off the gold standard.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Surely someone who voted for Obama in 2008 would not want the SCOTUS to become Conservative 7-2 which will happen if Obama is not re-elected.
boppers
(16,588 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I know exactly what you are talking about.
That is what the Obama defenders do not understand. DUers, pro- and anti-Obama are going to vote for Obama. But what about the rest of the country? They look at the polls and feel reassured. But it really isn't that easy.
When you look beyond the veneer into the substance of the Obama administration, there are lots of easy campaign ads for Obama's opponents. And Obama himself is to blame for that fact.
Ron Paul is the biggest threat to Obama -- because, although he is frighteningly wrong about most things including his views on economics, Social Security, unions, government regulation and the enforcement of our equal opportunity laws, he is right about a couple of issues that Obama is weak on, and that are in my opinion and the opinion of a lot of people, very important.
The issues on which Ron Paul makes no sense are more numerous than the couple of issues on which he makes good sense.
I don't know what to tell you about your son. Ron Paul is right about the Fed but wrong about economics in general. Ron Paul is right about certain very personal rights and about personal morality and privacy, but so wrong about our need to help each other when we are having a tough time. Ron Paul is right about ending wars but wrong about out role in the world in many other ways.
Obama needs to do much better. That means getting a new team of advisers and gathering new ideas. I don't think he is good at letting people go. I think he fronts for a lot of unsavory types -- like the Wall Street crowd probably without knowing it.
But Ron Paul? No way!!!!
donttazemebro
(14 posts)Obama has said himself it is an old out dated document written by old white guys.
Estevan
(70 posts)Where is the link where President Obama said that?
donttazemebro
(14 posts)Estevan
(70 posts)Obama wants the constitution to go. He said the constitution reflected blindspots that continues to this day.
Why are you deliberately spreading misinformation???
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
Ian David
(69,059 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)Most modern Americans, including Obama, do.
Estevan
(70 posts)Good luck going to college without help from the Department of Education after Ron Paul eliminates it. (blows it up in his campaign ad).
Ron Paul is the pied piper of politics...
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)And it's not because we don't have better ideas or policies, but because we've failed to present a left alternative or be properly organized. Ron Paul basically sucks up a plethora of people across a spectrum of "anti-establishment" (for lack of a better) politics from the weird Montana Militia type people to left-leaning people who probably would have been in SDS in the 1960s.
And instead of presenting a left alternative to the status quo, the way SDS did in the 60s of Eugene Debs and the Wooblies did in the early 20th Century, we are either mock the people in question,like many posters on this thread are doing, or cling to the status quo due to a cynical notion of partisan politics (WE MUST DEFEND OBAMA NO MATTER WHAT) and bourgeois electoralism.
donttazemebro
(14 posts)According to DHS anyone who supports Ron Paul may be a right wing terrorist.
Estevan
(70 posts)to be a liar and an obfuscater.
quaker bill
(8,264 posts)but it could be worth a try.
Response to Atman (Original post)
Occupy_2012 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BootinUp
(51,323 posts)when people support a hopeless 3rd party candidate. In my view that is giving up.
The Genealogist
(4,739 posts)and that others like you can get through to others like your son. He needs to know how dangerous a President Paul would be, and God forbid a majority in congress/SCOTUS who are true Paulites to boot. Your son, like most other people in this country, would be chewed up, spat out, and the remains kicked to the curb. Sure, there may be a few appealing things in Paul's philosophy. But on the whole, it is frightening. I think the result would make the Shrub era look down right appealing and the Gilded Age like a grand old time to pine for.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)Campaign manager died of pneumonia except say "your fault if you didn't have any".
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/was-ron-paul-thinking-his-former-campai
"That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody—" He never quite finished that point, letting the audience's loud applause finish it for him."
Selfishness on the scale the Ron Paul wants to implement will do more to destroy the country
than anything else.
johncoby2
(3,363 posts)
urbuddha
(363 posts)Ron Paul thinks it's O.K. to just let people die if they can't afford Medicare or Social Security.
He has no answer for what he will do to all of the homeless once he takes away these benefits. So the sad state of affairs would be Americans who can't afford it will just be left to die. Sad very sad...I will never vote for Ron Paul or anyone like him !
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)presidency
he is being an extremely lazy thinker
melonkali
(114 posts)If you're looking at the Repubs, Jon Huntsman is the best they have, IMO -- the only one I've seen I could "live with".
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)And some have made condescending comments. So this brings me to the question. Where are the younger people who can speak for themselves in this thread? Or is DU only for a bunch of old people? I'm only in my twenties myself and I almost feel out of place here. And I notice that DU has groups for baby boomers and seniors but not for young people. I wonder if a lack of younger posters at this site has to do with young people feeling outnumbered and uncomfortable here.
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)freshstart
(265 posts)I posted many articles in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2377322
walerosco
(471 posts)the only child. Good luck with him cos I hate to be you right now
Kahuna
(27,366 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)As terrorists and millions if immigrants sent back. Romney says the poor would be fine without welfare. Ron Paul wants to do away with civil rights and minimum wage. He's a known bigot. Please reason with your son. Stormfront also looks favorably on Ron Paul. Isn't that enough to make one think twice?
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)There has been a very concerted effort, by both former "left" and "right", to make Ron Paul out to be much better than he is. Focus on the fact that he is against abortion, and that he is against the civil rights act of 1964. Also, ask him what the Wall Street types would do if he allowed them to gut minimum wage.
SixthSense
(829 posts)Ship that job off to China and guess what wage they're paying?
We're already there in being reduced to the lowest common denominator, under the government we have now as well as under the allegedly different government we had a few years ago.
freshstart
(265 posts)in the late 70s and has been connected to the conservative caucus ever since
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bgFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ukoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6913,1208676&dq=shadow+government+ron+paul&hl=en
http://www.conservativeusa.org/35years.htm
alp227
(33,283 posts)and the other issues where the corporatist evangelical Christian RP has rather deplorable, backwards viewpoints? (Oh here's a video of RP criticizing Mitt Romney for saying corporations are people:
)
freshstart
(265 posts)should have the same rights as people here, listen after 4:00
He was a plaintiff on the side of Citizens United:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/projects/campaignfinance/collection/paul/paul.11.6.pdf
Why doesn't anyone pick up Paul's inconsistencies?
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I think it is good that your son is looking at the candidates and making up his own mind. That is how things are supposed to work. This is part of the process, of both the election cycle & his maturing.
This is a good thing.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's rather the opposite.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)but, rather listening and learning based upon his situation.
While I don't think much of RP he does have a few points with which I agree and frankly it is a good thing that the young man is spending some time listening and making up his own mind.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)for anyone with a penis, so who gives a fuck, right?
America, the land of It's All About ME, Wonderful ME!!
piratefish08
(3,133 posts)feeling will show up (or not) at the polls in 2012.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Anyone who supports Ron Paul supports a racist agenda since that is what Ron Paul believes in and makes no claims otherwise. He strongly believes that desegregation and end of slavery should never have been persued by the federal government. He believed in the right of the state. So if a state like Mississippi wanted to push slavery and segregation to this day he would be 100% for it. This is not a man I want leading and horror sets in me when I hear young people supporting a man like that.
Response to vaberella (Reply #195)
Romulox This message was self-deleted by its author.
whathehell
(30,469 posts)I talked to him a LONG time, told him I understood his disappointment, but convinced him, finally, that
Ron Paul was a worse choice....Paul is against things like military spending and the current war..Unfortunately,
he's also agains things like Social Security and Medicare...Like Norquist, he wants to drown government
in a bathtub.
Response to Atman (Original post)
Post removed
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)Tell him to dismiss all the naysaying, cynical bullshit about Obama not living up to some phony ideal. Politics - American style - ain't always pretty... In reality, Obama's done awesome, given the circumstances. Education helps.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)n/t
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)there would be no student loans if Ron Paul had his way. There would be no healthcare funding (accept, absurdly, to force women to have babies they didn't want as he is against abortion and contraception in a truly odd, non-libertarian way).
Trust your son to continue to look. Hopefully he will find that once he scratches the surface, Ron Paul is as phony as any of the other Republican candidates. If you want him to go there sooner, have him read the article about Paul's campaign manager dying because of lack of health insurance. The man is a heartless a**hole.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)spicegal
(758 posts)means and means what he says. Young people are drawn to that. However, some of his ideas are really off the wall, which is what a lot of young people don't get. Some of his ideas may sound nice on the surface, but put into place, would be disastrous.
think
(11,641 posts)America dry and no one in Washington seems to care or be willing to reign in our out of control military budget.
When the US spends almost $700 BILLION dollars in one year on the military we are losing not winning in the world. These costs show our military is inefficient and a detriment to America's stability. Sure if you throw insane money into the military you can win wars and effectively kill at will but it's grinding America's economy to a halt under it's weight.
So it's pretty easy for RP to be popular with people who are looking for reductions in military spending and an end to America policing the world at the American tax payers expense.
Ron Paul is making people think about military insanity and this is a good thing.
I believe it's a blessed thing that RP is on stage and talking truth to the right wing war machine. Why can't Dems just appreciate this facet of RP's campaign? Sure they can disagree on a huge list of things with Ron Paul but military spending isn't just some small issue. The US military budget is the elephant in the room and only Ron Paul is willing to even admit the elephant exists.
If Dems really want to cut into Paul's popularity they will need to move back to the left and the antiwar crowd. If not expect Paul's popularity to grow...
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Ron Paul is not anti-war! He is isolationist. There is a difference....a huge difference. He is coming from an extreme right wing view. He doesn't even accept evolution as fact. He is a nutball. I take nothing he says seriously. No one should.
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)My Ron Paul essay from Jan 5th, 2008 - still relevant!
RON PAUL: WHY SHOULD HE WORRY SOMEONE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY?
Ron Paul won’t win the presidential election, or come anywhere near it. He will continue to be a Texas Congressman. I will continue to live in England, thousands of miles away from him. So why should I worry about him?
Some quotations from his own website indicate some of the serious problems with his views, from a progressive perspective:
'A Republic, If You Can Keep It’ by Dr. Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Address to the U.S. House of Representatives delivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000
....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
.
....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.
....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.
...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.
....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.
....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'
So let's see. Paul is totally against any form of welfare state, even in its current American sense (very limited compared with most other developed countries); considers benefits for poor people to be 'theft'; does not think that people are entitled to medical care. Despite all his libertarian justifications for all the above, thinks that the government is entitled to ban abortions and 'defend marriage', (though he considers that these, like other government functions, should be carried out by individual states rather than the national government). He is opposed to gay rights ('heterophobia') and considers concern about the environment to be based on 'mythology'. Moreover, he is so isolationist or anti-Soviet or both, that he would apparently rather have had Hitler take over Europe than have an alliance between America and the Soviet Union during the war.
Moreover, despite his support for his country’s Constitution, he seems to be a less-than-fervent supporter of his country’s democracy. Democracy, in the sense of allowing all adults to vote, was not a feature of American politics at the beginning, or specified in its original constitution, even if America was closer to democracy than England or most other places in the late 18th century. America’s constitution was amended to allow women to vote in 1920. It had been amended to allow African-Americans to vote in 1870; but this was frequently evaded in southern states until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Paul has gone on record as opposing this act, as contrary to ‘states’ rights’, even to this day. Should he really be trusted to uphold democracy?
However, most of the Republican candidates have worrying right-wing views; and some of them are far more likely than Paul to win their party’s nomination. What is specifically worrying about Paul is that some ‘progressives’ sympathize with him, and prefer him to some if not all of the Democratic candidates. This is predominantly due to his opposition to the Iraq War and to the Patriot Act: both of which are rightly important issues to liberals. But in addition some people support him because they are frustrated with the status quo, and he is seen as opposing it. Some people even describe him as ‘anti-corporate’ despite the fact that his extreme economic libertarianism, if ever put into practice, would undoubtedly increase the power of corporations.
Some argue in this connection that the old distinction between ‘right’ and ‘left’ is no longer relevant. And it is indeed accurate to say that the right/left distinction should not be seen as a unitary dimension. People can be right vs left on a number of different issues, and different asp. Four important ones are: war/defence; economic/welfare; civil liberties; and social/ civil rights.
So here is where I would rate Bush, Blair and Paul:
Bush:
War/defence: Extreme right
Economic/welfare: Right
Civil liberties: Right
Social/civil rights: Right
Blair:
War/defence: Extreme right
Economic/welfare: Centre-right by British standards (i.e. to the left of Thatcher, but to the right of moderate Tories of the past such as Harold Macmillan)
Civil liberties: Right
Social/civil rights: Centre-left.
Paul:
War/defence: Left on Iraq war, but right on other aspects of world policies
Economic/welfare: Extreme right (could go no further right)
Civil liberties: Left with regard to Federal government infringements of civil liberties; Right with regard to such infringements by state governments or private organizations.
Social/civil rights: Extreme right.
So Blair overall is to the left of either Paul or Bush, but to the right of what I'd find acceptable. Paul and Bush are both thoroughly right-wing. Bush is right-wing on more issues; Paul is more extreme on the issues where he is right-wing.. If Bush is more dangerous than Paul, it's simply because he has more power.
What is frightening here is not so much Paul as a fairly powerless individual, but that some supposedly liberal anti-war people seem to be prepared to ally themselves with RW extremists, if they happen to be against the war. If this leads to liberals' acceptance of a combination of far-RW economic 'libertarianism', social conservativism, and xenophobia, this could have serious impact for future politics. Some of the danger is, I think, not so much from Paul himself, as from the groups and websites that support him. I fear that Paul and other of his ilk may appeal to disaffected progressives in a way that could get them to join a far-right movement without initially realizing that it *is* far-right.
Some of the original fascist organizations/ parties appealed to some left-wingers and lots of apolitical disaffected people at first, and this contributed to their success. And communism was and is of course 'left-wing' in its original impetus, but most Communist states ended up, according to the above classification: "War/defense: Right; Economic/welfare: Left; Civil liberties: Extreme right; Social/civil rights: Right".
I don't think that the particular form of right-wing movement that Paul represents is likely to lead to old-style fascism or other totalitarianism – though such things might be possible if different right-wing movements joined under one umbrella; but it could readily lead to a xenophobic scapegoating of ‘outsiders’ and to a far-right economic libertarianism that murders the poor or sick just as surely, if a bit more slowly, as an act of direct violence. It is important that progressives avoid getting involved, directly or indirectly, in such a movement. That is my real concern. Once the distinction between progressivism and far-right populism is blurred, dangerous hybrids could grow and readily spread to other parts of the world. I fear that an alliance between progressives and Paul supporters could be a step on a slippery slope to forming links with far-RW nationalist groups and individuals that oppose the war, such as Pat Buchanan; the British Nationalist Party; Jean-Marie LePen; even David Duke; etc. If that happens, and such groups gain respectability, especially in the eyes of people on the 'left', we may be sunk!
Myrina
(12,296 posts)And live with the consequences of that choice. At some point, we as parents have to realize our children aren't "mini-me's" anymore: whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' according to our sensibilities, they have developed their own worldview and will see things according to it.
If you forcibly change his mind, or 'dislike' him because he doesn't agree with you ... are you really encouraging him to be educated and engaged? Or are you insisting 'your way is the only way'?
I went thru it with my (now 21 yo) daughter over the past few years, on all things life-related. It ain't easy, but it's part of letting them figure out who they're going to become and what they stand for.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)He said it for his generation it was their Star Wars.
He thinks that this whole crap thing that I once believed in and he did too
is an illusion.
That we have both witnessed, for me the occupy thing, for him was much earlier.
Let me guess.......... this is 'democratic underground'.... yeah right.......LOL
I thought he was myopic in his youth
actually our visions of our realities
is the construct of what works for those
whose s life they think is working for them
.....
Ron Paul .......sucks........your son's consciousness sucks
But at least he knows that the reality he lives in sucks
Ron Paul...........is not a fan of this planet or the enviorment.
that is important.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Ron Paul's name came up while Hardball played in background during dinner, so I used the opportunity to bring up some of the concerns mentioned in this thread. "Jeez, I didn't say I'd ever vote for him," he said, as if disgusted with me for even suggesting such a thing. "I couldn't vote for any of those idiots."
He went on to explain that he only meant to point out that Ron Paul was at least honest. He said he thinks Paul has some good ideas (again, echoing alot of the remarks posted in this thread), but that most of his ideas are nuts. He thinks Paul deserves credit for saying what he means, meaning what he says, and being consistent. He said he only meant to compare Ron Paul to the flip-flopping and lying of Romney and Gingrich, and the stupidity of Bachmann and Perry.
Finally, he assured me he could never vote for ANY Republican. He just wished Obama was as true to his convictions as Paul is.
Now I just have to make sure he gets out to vote.
proud patriot
(102,514 posts)Don't freak out on your kid. I too once was lured to Libertarian ideas.
My dad a super duper big G Green party member handled it calmly and said these words to me.
"Do some more research, It's not my place to tell you how to vote but in my opinion the Libertarian party at it's core wants to dismantle the U.S. Constitution, so be careful with your vote."
We have never talked about libertarians since.
Hope this helps