Because those statements are not his opinions. They were, as I understand, the product of someone in his organisation trying to score cheap votes. Besides, if you listen to his speeches and debates now, he focuses on completely different subjects. I don't think he is even interested in racial matters.

As far his policies, that's way more serious. If you disagree with them, vote against him.

Just face it obiwan. You come on here. Bash every Republican with no intention of ever actually listening to what people have to say about him. Please change the name of this thread to "listen to me bash everything wrong with Republicans and please don't actual talk about Ron Paul because I have no interest nor knowledge in that."

Keep gobbling that crap you read up...

*actually talk about Ron...*

Excuse me--I think you have me mistaken for Putin.

I'll support a Republican candidate when I find one that meets my values and ideals...

And not before, I will not deign to be an "equal opportunity supporter" and merely back a candidate because I've been leaning heavily on the other side of the aisle and feel a change is in order in the spirit of fairness (which would NOT be the spirit of fairness, actually, but rather abject foolishness...but I digress.)

Furthermore:

If you'll view previous posts, I HAVE praised Republicans.

Historically, TR...recently, I said Newt Gingrich's approach to immigration was more palatable and reasonable than his contemporaries.

I've ALSO bashed my share of Democrats...Nancy Pelosi chief among them, and if you'll recall, I went so far as to post a "Who will win in 2012?" thread months back, insinuating Obama would lose the election.

I simply have no time nor taste for extremists--

Be they from the Raun Paul or Putin side of the aisle.

Now, then, with that said:

@Tom and basvan:

I DO consider these statements to be valid points of discussion for a candidate:

If the statements ARE his, it goes without saying, that has a significant impact on how he should be viewed as a candidate...

If they are NOT, as he asserts, and are merely statements others made under FOUR of his newsletters without his knowledge...well...

How can I expect him to run a tight ship in D.C. and keep the Nuclear Launch Codes under wraps and all if he can't keep something so small as a newsletter under control?

If they're his--a flaw in his character.
If they're not--a flaw in his ability to lead and control.

(To say nothing of the fact that even if, to be charitable, we DON'T ascribe these statements to him, but to others he knew...well, the company a man keeps, does that not say something of the man? And if we were to be REALLY generous and somehow say he didn't know who it was that posted these comments...again, how are you NOT able to keep track of who says what in the four newsletters you put out, and if you can't, how can I entrust such a man with international secrets?)

Discussing matters RP himself has brought up as campaign issues:

1. He has said he feels the US Dollar could be controlled by the United Nations...???
2. A return to the Gold Standard, in the 21st century??? Smacks of W.J. Bryan and Silver...
3. No foreign aid? So we can be even MORE hated around the world...foreign aid is an important diplomatic tool--it may be maoned "but we can't even take care of our own!" to which I promptly point to Hezbollah and like groups that DO give aid...along with bombs...so when 3rd-world nations are forced to choose sides between the over-fed nation that refused to lend a dime or the terror group that supplied meals in return for their becoming soldiers in a war against us...and that's WITHOUT mentioning what a callous and uncaring stance "no foreign aid" is in the first place.
4. I've said it before, I'll say it again--JEFFERSONIAN
POLITICS DO NOT WORK FOR A 21ST CENTURY NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER.
5. No Depts. of Education? Or Energy? Or the Interior? And so on? So we'll just allow all the states to teach whatever they want, no mandates? GREAT! So, when all that comes out of the south are Creation-Science-taught "doctors" and we lag even further behind the world in education...to say nothing of the other two Depts. I listed.
6. Economists have REPEATEDLY said hs economic policies could hurt us even MORE (And NO, I am NOT saying that because I denounce RP's economic policy I support Obama's, I AM saying, simply, I do not find RP's plan feasible, and neither do the experts.)



FOR STARTERS, those are some BEGINNING problems I have with Ron Paul.

Tell me, RP-boosters--why should I not consider this man to be not only one of the most absurd, extremist, and potentially dangerous and ill-conceived extremist candidates I have ever seen?

I'd vote for "The Rent Is Too Damn High!" Party before this nut...

Hell, I'd vote for Mitt Romney EASILY before this nut...

I'd vote for Rick P--no. My mistake.

If it ever comes down to Perry or Paul for president, I'm selling my belongings for a one-way flight to a competent country.

These letters have been pointed out for a while on here, the Ron Paul cult is unfazed. They think raising over a million dollars with racist paranoia is a-ok, and they also have no problem with Ron Paul posing with Stormfront founder Don Black or getting the endorsement of pastors who want to execute gays or speaking at the 50th anniversary of the racist/paranoid John Birch Society as recently as 2009. It doesn't matter that RP touted his newsletter in the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s in multiple interviews, heck he even told Howard Philips that it was responsible for him winning office.

Recently RP said there was only 8-10 bad sentences in the whole newsletter.

He's clearly a liar, but this is part of a general trend. RP flip flops almost as much as Mitt Romney.

Doesn't focus on racial matters? Pay no attention to his repeated condemnation of the Civil Rights Act, his strong ties with the League of the South and invitation of League of South members to testify before Congress, and his lone vote against the Rosa Parks medal. Paul had no problem funding medals for US soldiers, but Rosa Parks, whose medal wouldn't even be paid for by taxpayers, gets voted down.

"Bash every Republican with no intention of ever actually listening to what people have to say about him. "

You're just as partisan in defense of these worthless Republicans as others are in attacking them. Give it up, Tom.

The issue of these newsletters is indeed one of poor oversight on Paul's part, make no mistake. It is the greatest stain on the man. Nevertheless, he has disavowed them repeatedly, and has been otherwise consistent in his beliefs. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that he is not principled in his beliefs far beyond the other candidates, all of whom are happy to fit themselves into a mould that they think will give them a good chance of winning the presidency.

Basically, obiwan, this shouldn't be a reason for not voting for Paul not because it isn't very bad, but because besides this Paul has been far more principled and consistent than the others, and I do not know of another main party candidate who is like that.


@Putin, you know as well as everyone else that Paul has very particular beliefs about the role of government. You might as well say "Ron Paul supports drowning kittens and puppies" because he wouldn't support measures against their deaths.

Well, Ron Paul is a crazy old man, but he's still the sanest man in American politics. The political consensus today is that it's fine to ruin a person's life for smoking a joint or doing a tab of ecstasy, that the United States has the right and perhaps the obligation to get involved militarily in every single military conflict going on in the world today, and that whenever there is a financial crisis or even the threat of one that the most important thing for the federal government to do is to protect the wealthiest 1%. Ron Paul is popular because he's the closest thing to a major politician who doesn't believe all that.

There's lots not to like about Ron Paul (he did try to build, or let his lackeys try to build, a political base with some truly odious people in the past, and he's shown himself to be a poor judge of character in choosing his associates and employees. Plus, his economic ideas are, to put it mildly, fringe). But there's no reason to think he personally is racist, and he opposes the single most racist policy (the Drug War) that the United States currently has.

And, seriously, which do you think would make the United States more popular in the world as a whole -- our current brown-people-bombing, Israel-allying, dictator-propping set-up, or a totally non-interventionist policy?

Rereading that, to put it a more succinct way: when the system itself is crazy, don't be surprised when the best alternatives are themselves a little crazy.

@TGM:

1. Welcome back, haven't seen you in a while. :)

2. I disagree, I'm afraid...

"The issue of these newsletters is indeed one of poor oversight on Paul's part, make no mistake. It is the greatest stain on the man. Nevertheless, he has disavowed them repeatedly, and has been otherwise consistent in his beliefs."

Well, I already don't like his beliefs and ideas WITHOUT the racism allegations, so that's no help...

"I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that he is not principled in his beliefs far beyond the other candidates, all of whom are happy to fit themselves into a mould that they think will give them a good chance of winning the presidency."

Unfortunately, sticking to ones guns does not automatically make those guns viable or right...I can repeatedly insist to you that 2+2 does, in fact, equal 5, and that will not make it so. To use a more "realistic" analogy, Creationists may argue until they're blue in the face that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory--it is not, and no amount of firm conviction or belief will change that, so to me, I cannot derive anything from his dogged determination to stick by his "principles" unless I were to be in agreement with them, and I am NOT, nor do I see anything he has said lately that would persuade me, so, indeed, far from persuading me to his point of view, his determination and sticking to his far-off, extremist point of view has done nothing but alienate me from his base, to say nothing of the fact that, again, merely repeating an ideal over and over again does NOT make that ideal noble, intelligent, or correct.

"Basically, obiwan, this shouldn't be a reason for not voting for Paul not because it isn't very bad, but because besides this Paul has been far more principled and consistent than the others, and I do not know of another main party candidate who is like that."

Well, again, I don't care for his principles in the first place, and I tend to disagree--

Statements like this DO put me off and SHOULD put one off...this is not a mere slipped sentence in one debate.

To use a comparison from a recent political foray, this is NOT John McCain referring to Obama as "that one" or Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment in 2008.

Those were one-time slips, in the moment, and were completely isolated.

In Ron Paul's case, we have NUMEROUS quotes, disparaging MULTIPLE ethic groups--one of which I would be a part of, if we count Jews, and I count them as sort of straddling the line, for reasons I've mentioned before (speaking of the group of people who were confined together for hundreds of years here when I say "Jews" and NOT the religion) so that doesn't engender me towards him at all--published in FOUR newsletters, ALL bearing his name...

So, I say it again:

Either Ron Paul DID have something to do with it, which I feel is probable, as like statements appear in multiple newsletters, OR, if we are going to be generous, we can say that Ron Paul is NOT racist...but IS rather absent-minded or careless, enough so that he allowed these rather massive and repeated transgressions to occur in multiple publications under his banner.

So, grossly negligent/ignorant, or else racist--

Neither description, to me, seems very presidential.

@ ckroberts, the thing is, Ron Paul supporters and sort of lukewarm statements of support like yours say "Ron Paul means well" and that's all well and good, but you also have to look at the likely effects of what Ron Paul wants to do. Intent does not erase effect, and good intentions don't mean you won't do anything bad. (I didn't want to say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"). And honestly, I'm not entirely sure his intentions are so pure anyway.

But aside from that, I would like a RP-promoter to tell me WHY...

WHY should I vote for this extremist?

Do NOT tell me about his principles, or how he's separate from the system--which I don't buy anyway, he's an elected official as well, but I digress--but, rather...

Answer my points, PLEASE:

"1. He has said he feels the US Dollar could be controlled by the United Nations...???
2. A return to the Gold Standard, in the 21st century??? Smacks of W.J. Bryan and Silver...
3. No foreign aid? So we can be even MORE hated around the world...foreign aid is an important diplomatic tool--it may be maoned "but we can't even take care of our own!" to which I promptly point to Hezbollah and like groups that DO give aid...along with bombs...so when 3rd-world nations are forced to choose sides between the over-fed nation that refused to lend a dime or the terror group that supplied meals in return for their becoming soldiers in a war against us...and that's WITHOUT mentioning what a callous and uncaring stance "no foreign aid" is in the first place.
4. I've said it before, I'll say it again--JEFFERSONIAN
POLITICS DO NOT WORK FOR A 21ST CENTURY NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER.
5. No Depts. of Education? Or Energy? Or the Interior? And so on? So we'll just allow all the states to teach whatever they want, no mandates? GREAT! So, when all that comes out of the south are Creation-Science-taught "doctors" and we lag even further behind the world in education...to say nothing of the other two Depts. I listed.
6. Economists have REPEATEDLY said hs economic policies could hurt us even MORE (And NO, I am NOT saying that because I denounce RP's economic policy I support Obama's, I AM saying, simply, I do not find RP's plan feasible, and neither do the experts.)"

SIX MASSIVE PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH RON PAUL.

FOR STARTERS.

So, RP-promoters...you want to talk issues, let's talk issues, starting with those six.

Please, answer those concerns.

1. This is just him being a supporter of free trade. Honestly, what is the difference between the UN controlling the money supply compared the the Fed controlling the money supply? Besides, this would never happen and in my eyes; its just hyperbole to get his free trade points across.

2. Because rapid inflation, and the devaluation of our currency is looking much more promising...

3. I disagree with Paul on this one, but its not a deal breaker for me. I think we should give foreign aid, but certainly need to do a better job of how we give aid. Most of it is political and I doubt it is very efficient. If you want to give aid, donate to the Red Cross.

4. Not sure what you are saying here.

5. Big government is bad. Paul is all about letting the states do their own thing. And you statement is so rash with a stereotype of the south it makes you look like an ass. The states can still have their own energy and education departments. What makes them worse at handling those things compared to the federal government?

6. See Keynes vs. Hayek debate. I'm sure there are many economists who would support Paul's general economic stances. And until you give me some proof of the "experts" not finding his plans feasible, I will just assume you are talking out of your ass.

"Putin, you know as well as everyone else that Paul has very particular beliefs about the role of government."

Meaning that RP has no problem with invasive government that tramples over civil liberties and deprives marginalized groups of basic civil rights so long as it is done at the state level, which is why racists, theocrats, and other odious groups believe that they have a real opportunity to implement their horrendously oppressive policies should RP win office. It's a win-win for Paul, because he gets to recruit these reactionaries to his cause without overtly endorsing their views. It's just a wink, wink, nod, nod type of affair.

@Mafialligator, the implication there is that the status quo is good or desirable. We're killing thousands of people around the world, eroding civil liberties, locking up tons of Americans (disproportionately African Americans) for victimless crimes, and operating a regressive tax-and-spend system that takes money from poor and middle class for the benefit of the wealthy. How's Ron Paul going to make it worse? Invade more countries? Lock up more black people? More bailouts for the wealthy bankers etc who caused the financial crisis in the first place? I suppose he might be able to implement the undesirable parts of his program without implementing any of the good ones, but it's difficult for me to imagine a Ron Paul administration that's much worse than what we've had under Bush/Obama.

@obiwan, In general: I don't like the gold standard part of Ron Paul's agenda, but it's hard to argue that the Federal Reserve hasn't been operated, essentially, by the wealthy/powerful and for the benefit of the wealthy/powerful. Additional oversight would be a good thing.

To answer your six specific points:

"1. He has said he feels the US Dollar could be controlled by the United Nations"

Do you have a citation for that? Ron Paul says some crazy stuff, so he easily could have said that, but I'm not sure what the specific context was.

"2. A return to the Gold Standard, in the 21st century??? Smacks of W.J. Bryan and Silver..."

Lots of people would like a currency system less beholden to the current economic elite. I'm not an economist, but I don't think the gold standard is a totally insane idea. It's just a minority one.

"3. No foreign aid? So we can be even MORE hated around the world...foreign aid is an important diplomatic tool--it may be maoned "but we can't even take care of our own!" to which I promptly point to Hezbollah and like groups that DO give aid...along with bombs...so when 3rd-world nations are forced to choose sides between the over-fed nation that refused to lend a dime or the terror group that supplied meals in return for their becoming soldiers in a war against us...and that's WITHOUT mentioning what a callous and uncaring stance "no foreign aid" is in the first place."

I reject this premise. Example of the Middle East: We give lots of foreign aid to both Arabs and Jews. Does that win of the affection of either side? No, that's not human nature. Instead, each side takes their aid for granted while resenting the money that goes to their enemies.

Second, where is the evidence that foreign aid is doing that much good? It seems that far too often, the beneficiaries are dictators and military budgets, not the average person in any given country. Besides, taking this out of context hurts -- there's no amount of foreign aid that can fix the bad image of drone strikes killing innocent people, and that's part of what Ron Paul wants to end.

"4. I've said it before, I'll say it again--JEFFERSONIAN
POLITICS DO NOT WORK FOR A 21ST CENTURY NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER."

We'll have to disagree here. Not everyone wants empire.

"5. No Depts. of Education? Or Energy? Or the Interior? And so on? So we'll just allow all the states to teach whatever they want, no mandates? GREAT! So, when all that comes out of the south are Creation-Science-taught "doctors" and we lag even further behind the world in education...to say nothing of the other two Depts. I listed."

People teach stupid things with the Department of Education in place. The DoE doesn't have the kind of enforcement power you're giving it. I haven't seen much connection between the DoE and the educational attainment of Americans. The beneficial things that the Departments of Interior and Energy do could be done more cheaply in other ways -- we don't need cabinet level positions to protect them.

"6. Economists have REPEATEDLY said hs economic policies could hurt us even MORE (And NO, I am NOT saying that because I denounce RP's economic policy I support Obama's, I AM saying, simply, I do not find RP's plan feasible, and neither do the experts.)"

Maybe -- I'm not an economist.

You might be right about all this about Ron Paul's economic ideas. They might indeed be strikes against him that would make it impossible for you to vote for him. But in that case, you've got to vote third party, because every other major candidate's positions on the drug war, bailouts and protection of the wealthy, and America's imperial adventures should strike them out as well.

@ ckroberts - I'm not implying the status quo is good at all. If you look at basically any other forum post I've ever made it'd be pretty clear I don't think that. But in terms of his domestic policies, I think his stances on a lot of things would ultimately do more harm than good in the long run.

Particularly his stances on things like civil rights and gay rights and feminism and so on. It may be the case (and again, I'm skeptical) that Ron Paul is as anti-racist, feminist and pro gay as it is possible to be. But his stance on dissolving any government policy on issues like that would serve mainly to further oppress these minorities.

@mafialligator, I'm not a regular forum-er so I apologize if I mischaracterize anybody's beliefs. What you say does touch on the reason that, I think, a lot of people support Ron Paul: he's maybe going to do more harm than good in some areas, but that's going to be so outweighed by the good he does in another area that it's worth it. That good area is different for different folks (ending foreign wars, the drug war, bank bailouts, etc), but it's usually something that people are so passionate about that everything else Ron Paul wants to do simply doesn't matter. In my case, I think the drug war and our current foreign policy are so ruinous that just about anything is worth it to get rid of them.

And just more generally I understand why people look to libertarianism as a way forward, but I think on the whole we're better off moving forward with a more modern liberal approach to social justice than with a libertarian one. I think the successes that modern, liberal social justice movements would bring are more in tune with society and more likely to last, even if they're slower coming.

Civil rights is a good example: as I see it, it would be great for African Americans, particularly poor ones, if we ended the drug war and the associated militarization of American police if it meant ending, say, federal affirmative action policies.

OK, so, give me some time, Tom, ckroberts, to respond to both of your answers to my six questions, so I can respond to both of you at once, instead of piecemealing it...

@ ckroberts - I agree with you insofar as to say the drug war and foreign policy but I think it's a mistake to ignore all the other issues in favour of just those two. That seems rather narrow. But I do get it.

Just a couple of things:

1 - Ron Paul is not consistent. He voted for the Mexican border fence and now he claims he's against it. He supported DADT and federal laws against gay marriage while claiming he's against federal restrictions on gay marriage (I guess Mr. Constitution never heard of the Full Faith and Credit clause). He claims he's against government waste but has made spirited arguments in defense of earmarks. He claims he's against interventionism but he makes common cause with the psychotically militant John Birch Society, that made a living out of calling for war with the Soviet Union and clamoring to keep the Panama Canal. He also voted for the authorization of war in Afghanistan. RP also flip flopped on evolution, first stating he believed in it and then saying he didn't to pander to the anti-science wingnuts. He was also for the death penalty and now claims to be against it. In 2008, Paul said man-made global warming was a reality. This time around, he called it a hoax. Then of course there's his voting against MLK day and now claiming he and MLK would be BFFs. And his repeating voting for federal laws invading a woman's privacy and telling her what she can do about her own health.

2 - Ron Paul's economic ideas would be a disaster. There's a reason we went to the Federal Reserve system and got off the gold standard, and it has to do with the fact that pre-fed system had led to depression after depression. The reason why we had a Great Depression is because the idea of deficit spending had not been developed yet, so we did not have this concept of stimulating the economy by stimulating consumption. Paul wants to cut the budget by 1 trillion in the middle of a weak economy, thereby decreasing consumption by who knows how much. The gold standard would catapult unemployment to record highs, because economic activity would have to be reduced to match the money supply. Austrian economists is not taken seriously by any economic journal anywhere. It is thoroughly discredited. Their constant crying about economic apocalypse and massive inflation has not come true. Meanwhile we have a pile of evidence that slashing spending in the middle of a weak economy is a horrible idea. The fed, like it or not, saved the financial system from complete collapse. There was no liquidity at all. The fed acted to save us after Bear Stearns collapsed, and again after AIG. The bailout has been paid back. The fed is making the US treasury money. Paul is a huckster for gold who doesn't have a clue about economics.

3 - Does Paul's drug war position suddenly make up for his palling around with white supremacists and opposition to basic civil rights laws? No. People act as though by annuling federal police powers, Paul is somehow going to do anything with regard to the states. No, he's just going to make it so the states can do whatever the hell they want. So if states want to lock you up for smoking pot, Paul isn't going to do a damn thing about it. If states want to deprive you of employment, housing and education on account of your race, Paul isn't going to a thing about it. If states want to impose christian dominionism and force all non-christians to become Christians, he isn't going to anything about it. Nor will he do anything if states bludgeon protesters and detain them without cause. Heck, he doesn't even particularly care when the feds do that, we've been trying to get him to raise a fuss about FBI raids on anti-war activists, he hasn't done jack about it. He's a phony.

"The fed, like it or not, saved the financial system from complete collapse. "

True, but they also caused a majority. Its like hitting someone with a car and getting praise for performing CPR to save them.

"Austrian economists is not taken seriously by any economic journal anywhere. It is thoroughly discredited."

So all economists are Keynesian?

"Paul wants to cut the budget by 1 trillion in the middle of a weak economy, thereby decreasing consumption by who knows how much. "

I agree. This is nuts. But he will have people around him that won't let it happen. Though cutting spending does not always lead to lower consumption, nor is consumption and continued defecit spending always the answer.

*True, but they also caused a large part of it*

Wow. My grammar is awful today.

"True, but they also caused a majority. Its like hitting someone with a car and getting praise for performing CPR to save them."

Uh no, the fed did not cause the banks to engage in risky practices. They did not direct the banks to implement the originate to distribute model. They did not tell financial institutions to pour their money into overleveraged investment banks. They did not tell credit rating agencies to lose all sense of objectivity when rating debt securities. At most, they encouraged lending with lower interest rates at a time when they should have been higher - 2003-2004. That's a small part of the puzzle that isn't worth the kind of blanket condemnation it is getting from the goldbugs.

"So all economists are Keynesian?"

No, the choice isn't between Keynesianism & Austrianism. There are/were many Monetarists and other economists who think Austrians are quacky, notably Milton Friedman. Basically any economist who believes in the utility of the scientific method and empirical data thinks Austrians are full of it.

"Though cutting spending does not always lead to lower consumption, nor is consumption and continued defecit spending always the answer."

Er..the market economy runs by buying and selling things. If nobody is buying, nobody is selling. The economy declines. Profits decrease. Production has to decrease because there is too much supply for the limited demand. Unemployment thus increases.
Tell me how the economy functions when people can't afford to buy things and where is the capital for investment going to come from when the government pulls out. Private sector is just going to fill the gap entirely eh? Even if they don't think it's profitable?