General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The real question that the Ron Paul candidacy poses for Democrats [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)"More stuff about how Paul sucks. It's not the point. "
...the point is Paul sucks. Why do you need to mention him and attach positions to him that you know are false. From the OP:
But his stands on war and drug policy...
Paul is not anti war, and hyping him serves no purpose except to create the impression that he is credible on somethings.
Again: "That's like saying the KKK has some good ideas on buying local."
Would you argue that?
"Why aren't the Democrats leading the way on lowering the defense budget, ending the empire, reforming drug policy, reducing the surveillance state, rolling back the civil rights outrages associated with the "war on terror"? On the contrary, why is a Democratic administration escalating several wars, keeping defense as about half of the discretionary budget, refusing to reclassify marijuana and threatening pot dispensaries? "
You just made a poin without mentioning Paul, and I'm sure you could find a lot of credible opinions by prominent people to support your point.
"It shouldn't be Ron Paul who gets to talk about that stuff. "
It seems to me that the points are being made as an excuse to mention Paul.