This is why Ron Paul attracts some liberals.

[walerosco]

Ever so often threads about Ron Paul show up on DU (like http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133609) with people wondering why anybody could support a man with such disastrous economic policies. I dunno the sole reason why but as someone who has been following his campaign very closely and as someone who has in the past few days contemplated voting for him in GE, aI can tell you what attracts this young, black, under employed man to him.

It is the war and the drug on wars issue(minority communities) that is killing this country, the way I see it, this is the about the only area where he can affect US policies without the help of congress. The way congress is run, he would not be able to affect the safety net that has been built up in th last 60yrs, if anything, the money we would save can be used to bolster those programs when he is defeated the next election. I see the ending of the killing and destruction of people and cities in countries around the world as a top priority.

Anyway, please watch this video and try to understand why we must wrestle the anti war from the libertarians back to the liberals. I also know this is a democratic website and me posting this may lead to a permanent ban of my account but thats ok because this needs to be said.

Btw, there are hundreds of videos like this all over youtube. These are not fake liberals supporting him like some have suggested, these are people making a difficult decision in the face of limited options.

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED (9.00 especially) gory pictures of war

[vaberella]

2. Have you wondered if you're a sexist, homophobic racist?

I say this because Ron Paul is just that and his words on social issues are extreme. I always have to wonder about people who even contemplate voting for him. That says to me the person has done research on who ever they're planning on voting for. And so you know his policies and where he stands and what he has said in the past. There should be no understanding him or even contemplating. There is enough information that marks him as disasterous on all fronts and economic policies are least of our worries.

[gateley]

11. People don't do research - they listen to sound bites. nt

[vaberella]

12. Then they claim...We didn't know he would do this or that.

You'd think they'd vet the candidates they're interested in.

[walerosco]

19. I know alright

But if Obama with 59 senate and majority house could not pass the HCR he wanted, what makes you think another president will do better? I was a little too optimistic with Obama thinking he could just forced down the throats of congress his policies but I now know its more complicated than that. You have to compromise and reach out to people essentially trying to see you fail and that is goverment.

I am under no illusion that politicians will or even can do everything they promise during their campaigns but one have to believe that politicians can do something at all and believe there are some things they will not compromise on and that is why we vote

[DocMac]

3. Shocking and disgusting content!

Thats what it says.

[Autumn]

4. I'm anti war, but these nuts are enough to send any liberal

screaming in agony back into the arms of any Democrat.

[MADem]

5. You might want to put your GRAPHIC CONTENT warning in your subject line.

Not everyone reads first, views later.

I think Ron Paul is a racist homophobe, and I don't really care if he says one or two "correct" things. Any fucking idiot can be "right" on a topic or two, it doesn't make them a good or decent person. Hell, even Hitler liked dogs.

Liberals are generally smarter than the average bear--they tend to look at how the person stands on ALL the issues. This homophobic, racist asshole does NOT hold liberal views. He's a pig.

What was it one of the admins here said? Oh, yeah....

FUCK RON PAUL.

[Historic NY]

6. This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.

wow.

[MADem]

13. There's a small mercy. Glad I didn't click on it. nt

[walerosco]

16. Sorry about that

The video has been up for almost a week now and its is censored by youtube a few hrs after posting on DU. Send me an email at [e-mail] and I will direct you to another version of the video.

It is ironic that it is the same youtube that has in it library graphic videos of surgeries, accidents etc but God forbid anyone shows images injured children

[Hulk]

7. The only thing I have to say about the Pauls is:

....they have a couple good ideas. That's it. But I also would have to add, they have just as many and more terrible ideas.

Is that what we want?....a few good ideas with some other policies and ideas that would pull us back into the cave man era?

If ANYONE considers a vote for either of these nut jobs, you need to drag out a piece of paper and pencil; write down the ideas you like, and then open up your head a little and investigate the ideas that sound bat-shit crazy, or would leave the more vulnerable and weak out on the street. There are plenty of them. It's "everyman for himself" in their views. Absolute bull shit.

[walerosco]

17. I agree

But I am just showing you how a liberal who knows about his newsletter problem, civil right stance, education policy etc etc could be led to support him. The war is a much bigger issue than SS, medicare to the younger generation. I love the idea that there is a program like medicare that will take care of me free of charge in my old age, but that is like 40 yrs from now and now I do not want my name or the little tax that I pay to be used in the killing of foreigners.

I know the official line is that we are helping those people but just as we did not really help the majority Iraqis, we are not helping the vast majority of the Libyans(see Pakistani, Somila and Yemen drone strikes too) and worst part is that they are using us as colleteral to borrow money for all these fighting. Not suggesting anyone vote for him but if democrats acted like democrats, no liberal would ever think of voting for Paul

[dmallind]

8. Stalin industrialized Russia's economy and vastly lessened gender inequality

It's not only possible but predictable that totalitarian loonies have a few genuinely good points. But these unfortunately are indissolubly joined to that totalitarian lunacy bit.

[frazzled]

9. No, only people who fancy themselves liberals

No true liberal would contemplate voting for Ron Paul.
And concern with a single issue such as drug policy, no matter how valid, does not make someone a liberal.

[ellenfl]

14. it's so shocking, i can't even see it! eom

[walerosco]

18. Hey

send me an email at [e-mail] and I will direct you to another version of the video that is if you still wanna watch the graphic mess that is called war.

[iverglas]

15. and this is why I'm not a "liberal"

The enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend. Ron Paul is not my friend. Not as a woman, an activist for human rights, or even as a pot smoker. (I'm not in the US, but if I were, I would hardly believe voting for Ron Paul was going to liberate me from drug laws.)

It's all too easy to adopt a position commonly held by "liberals" -- like drug decriminalization -- and wrap one's self up in the liberal flag on that basis. And it's all too common. Self-interest passed off as liberalism: Phil Ochs had these "liberals" nailed:

A genuine progressive can make the necessary distinctions. A genuine progressive doesn't support a candidate whose policies would devastate the lives of so many people because there happens to be a superficial resemblance between one of those policies and something in the progressive agenda.

A genuine progressive can distinguish between anti-imperialism and isolationism.

A genuine progressive can even distinguish between a real libertarian and Ron Paul. Real libertarians don't advocate enslaving women to their anti-choice agenda.

I saw this thread because I was asked to serve on the jury for the OP, which voted 3-3, i.e. to leave it on a tie. I feel a little responsible for that since I was ambivalent.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If this were a direct call to support Paul, I would understand it to be impermissible. Instead, it is a statement of a not uncommon position, falling (perhaps carefully) short of a statement of voting intentions, e.g., and one <that> cries out to be refuted whenever and wherever possible, as it can be fairly easily. I understand that people at DU are tired of doing that. <I omit another comment I made as not directly relevant to the post.> - iverglas