Ron Paul

stridge;292236 said:

I hate to be cynical about politics in this fashion, but there never really was any hope for Ron Paul. You need a lot more broad support and pure electoral power to accumulate delegates and secure the nomination, and no realistic analysis of Paul's candidacy has ever shown that he has the capability to do this. He's made a strong showing than any expected, but no credible political commentators, pollsters, journalists, etc, have ever believed that it was possible for Ron Paul to actually win the GOP primary cycle.

Also, I'd urge you to read the article I linked in the previous post. I know there's a lot to like about Ron Paul, but there are some very troubling aspects to his record and his base support that I think are important to know about. Ron Paul has addressed the concerns and taken responsibility for them, which is admirable, but to me there are still fundamental problems that are left unsolved by his apology.

Click to expand...

stridge;292304 said:

Hey Reber,

Can't watch the video right now, but I will.

So far as the article not being accurate -- Ron Paul himself came forward and admitted that all the newsletters and the quotes provided did indeed exist. The NY Times and other major news sources also easily tracked down photocopies as well - as the author mentions, most of them were archived in several libraries and publicly available to anybody with a library card.

Anyway, I don't believe that Paul is the author of many of the statements even though they were written from his point of view. My problem is that he allowed several newsletters bearing his name and approval, and sometimes written as if he himself were the author, to go out to hundreds of thousands of people. This is just plain irresponsible and highly questionable - if a mainstream politician in the US had any association with comments like those found in the newsletters, they'd be finished. I think there's a lot that needs to be answered for there, and though Ron Paul took responsibility and apologized, that just doesn't quite cut it for me.

A person that wants to lead the nation needs to be more vigilant about their associations and things released to their constituancy, and frankly the level of vile racism and paranoia displayed in those letters is very disturbing - especially when you consider that they were distributed to Ron Paul's biggest contirbutors and electoral base for many years.

I know you like the guy, but think about it objectively. If this were any other politician I doubt anybody would find it acceptable, yet Ron Paul supporters have no trouble dismissing this as just a misunderstanding and ancient history.

Click to expand...

Reber187;292356 said:

i completely agree with your entire post. i know Dr Paul apologized for the views expressed within his newsletters and also for his poor error in editorial responsibilities. i'm not saying that the quotes provided don't exist, i just didn't see them in a context of any shape... i don't believe he advocates the lions share of those standpoints, nonetheless, and this may surprise you, i think that it is more-than-likely there is a shred of what Dr Paul may well believe on a partial-level located somewhere in the newsletters... that said, it doesn't mean he is bad person as there is no evidence to descry that proves he's ever acted on it. his policies speak for themselves; some might be flagged as old school, but for the most part his 'rethinking' for a new America and his rigorous constitution abiding reforms will put more money in YOUR pocket and aim to secure peace of mind for the future; moreover when he voices his principles he never comes over as bigoted... only aspersion shunting him into a corner ever does this.

i am disgusted when i watch the channel 4 news here in England(which is what i grew up watching and it educated me in home and foriegn affairs), even here Ron Paul gets no mention when all the other Republican candidates did so, not even a whisper... something is going on here Stridge and it has been from the very beginning. yes, i am prone to indulging in conspiracies, and yes i like Ron Paul, but i'm no fool and can dine with reason when its staring me in the face.
as i said in a previous post, there are a plethora of Ron Paul smear campaign news videos across the net which document the behaviour of interviewers on the prime networks in America towards Dr Paul...

i have never seen such character assassination directed to a person in such a position as his by such a widespread contingent of the media. and if you or anybody else can find evidence that any other candidate has been the subject to the very same lacerating then i will shut up shop.
[again i will state that i don't believe that this is the circumstance all the time by the entire media or any one network - i have seen countless videos where Dr Paul is interviewed with fair measures of positive and negative lines of questioning]

furthermore, i read that you don't feel that Dr Paul has the character to lead America, he doesn't really have the presidential quailities that are a necessity. i put it to you that the leaders of our nations are celebrities as much as they are heads of the country. people associate the ins and outs of a presidents/priministers private life with there capability to run a nation - this is bullshit and a cancerous byproduct of the 24hour news vacuum. of course you wouldn't want a racist paedophile that shoots grannies at the helm, but the celebrity culture in politics is a smokescreen of spin and misdirection from the mega-factors of government. the meat of policies, reforms, forecasting, etc takes a back seat, or is overshadowed by "personal news".

Ron Paul has the raw fibre to take America by the horns and attempt to rescue a country on its knees, because he isn't a celebrity. he is the lone wolf as many have branded him, because he isn't full of shit, he's not a puppet, and he's not racked with the guilt of willingly stepping onto a bandwagon of corruption for the sake of celebrity.

---
Obama is black, Clinton is female. one of the two will win because America wants change, change of something to look at. its symbolic, it has nothing to do with genuine politics. both will rape the people as much as, and then some, as the Bush administration have, both will drive America into an economic abyss, and both will wage war in the Oil states(just scan their cabnit's of warmongers).
it will be just like redecorating the office... nothing will really change.

peace.


keep pushing

Click to expand...

stridge;292664 said:

Many good insights in your post. For the record, I doubt Ron Paul agrees with all of the views in his newsletters (although on issues, like Israel or some urban crime matters, he has provided live quotes similar to the sentiments expressed in the letters). But the fact that he wasn't even aware of what was being written under his name, and often from his point of view, and then distirubted to hundreds of thousands of individuals over the years, is quite disturbing to me. Where is his oversight? Where is his contact with his base? Was this tacit acceptance or did he simply not care what was being put out there in his name? It's a troubling point.

I entirely agree with your comments about electoral candidates and celebrity culture, but I fundamentally disagree with Ron Paul on the issues, not because he doesn't have personality or buzz -- as you well know, he has raised remarkable amounts of money and does collect plenty of headlines on this side of the Atlantic, even if you're not seeing it over there. I'm a big state liberal, so Ron Paul's platform, including irradicating most government services and putting us back on the gold standard, are fundamentally opposed to what I think is best for the country. Frankly, a lot of his policies are just not pallatable to many GOP or Democratic voters, and it's not because they're obsessed with celebrity candidates or don't understand where Ron Paul stands. He advocates some pretty extreme stuff, a lot of which people think is out of touch or naive.

But one thing I have noticed over here is that Ron Paul benefits greatly from the 'cult of personality' element that you mentioned. I've talked to a number of people in person that love Ron Paul, and they're completely unaware of his policy ideas (like getting rid of the education department) and are suprised to learn about them. A lot of them like the idea of a 'lone wolf,' as you called him, and aren't interested in the consequential aspect of his policies. This is troubling to me, because it demonstrates that a lot of the people who are turned off by mainstream candidates don't make their choices based on substantive policy so much as momentum and zeitgeist. They love an underdog that they view as being anti-establisHydromaxent, but they don't give a shit what he believes in. I'm not saying this applies to you or all of his supporters, but certainly a good chunk don't grasp the full implications of Ron Paul's political agenda.

So far as character assasination by the media and all that, I still don't reall by it. I know the old youtube video montage crowd is pretty active in their presentation of this perceived problem, but the fact is, Ron Paul never really had a shot at the nomination and so it's not exactly prime concern of the news agencies that he get a lot of glowing press. I also think that as I mentioned above, a uniting trait of many Ron Paul fans, especially the internet community that has sprung up around his candidacy, is the mutual attitude of "they're all against our candidate! Fight back!" It's a combative and alienated crowd in many ways, and the popularization of the idea that Ron Paul isn't a serious contender because some cabal of different media and political forces are actively marginalizing him is something that his fans enjoy perpetrating and discussing while perhaps ignoring the more objective truth. There is a certain affection for the "us against them" mentality that I hear from many of Ron Paul's advocates, and I think this is a major part of his appeal to them.

Now, the character issue. The next president of the US has to be a powerfully capable uniter and somebody that is able to appeal broadly, in a fashion that will tyranscend normal partisan bullshit and get Congress in a productive cycle. Ron Paul has not shown a lot of evidence that he is this type of politican. This goes back to the journal comments thing - whethere he was actively aware that many racist and conspiracist folks were using his name and position as an organizing tool or not, it doesn't matter. Either he was complicit with some terrible things, or he was largely ignorant of indifferent to what a large chunk of his base was all about. Neither of thse are presidential. Also, this guy is basically an idealogue at the end of the day -- the president has to be more than a guy with a lot of far out ideas -- there needs to be more substance than having not taken some pay raises or advocating strict Constitutionalism, something which is actually considered a little absurd by a lot of legal and Constitutional scholars. And finally, he just wouldn't be capable of reigning in both GOP and Democratic interests in a way that gives direction and shape to new defense, energy, and education legislation. Nothing in his record really shows that he would be capable of uniting and leading this way, and a lot his record indicates that he's pretty out of touch with many areas of American politics and the world at large. He's got ideas, but he's insular and uncompromising over extremes, which don't work for the American presidency.

Anyway, after the stuff about all the newsletters came out, his chances went from pretty much impossible to certainly impossible. There is never going to be a GOP nominee whose name is signed off on hundreds of newsletters that contain bizarre racist tirades and conspiracy modeling. I still think there are a lot of good and interesting things about his candidacy, but in the end Ron Paul is not, nor was he ever a serious contender for the nomination, for a lot of different reasons.

Click to expand...

Reber187;293155 said:

just checked back in 'deep thoughts'(often missed as its at the foot of the main page)
thanks for the reply Stridge, i invariably enjoy reading your standpoints on the issues.

you are naturally correct about the malpractice in respect to his role in what goes out in HIS newsletter... bewildering i think is a fitting word.

i think that the reality of matter is that a great deal of voters across the board don't know shit about policies and perhaps don't care to either. its not just a cluster of Ron Paul advocates that are guilty of being shy of all the facts, its commonplace; however they should make more of an effort to be clued up, as should anybody who will be casting a vote.

as for the character assassination and conspiracy(my word not yours ) against Ron Paul, i will remain steadfast in my view that he is the victim of a campaign of smear to discredit him and his politic convictions.
i exclaimed in a previous post that i do not believe that he throttled by any one network all the time or never afforded the professional respect due, but he has, without question, been treated by interviewers and news anchors in a manor that is out-and-out disgraceful... not to mention the oft-crooked retorts and comments made in live debates, and the short-changing of time allocated to speak - this may seem a tad trivial to you i don't know, but there is a tone of slander to discredit and disrespect Ron Paul which i believe, to a certain extent is by design.
'us against them' is romantic i'll give you that, but Ron Paul has been revered as the poster boy of constitutionalism, liberty etc etc by the "internet commuinty" because of what he stands for and believes. he's long in the tooth and knows his way around, he isn't a product of the internet underground(for want of a better term) thats just where his supports communicate in droves... its a pity that alot of the refuse spouted by the minority on the net inturn brand the majority with the label quack, weirdo etc etc.

the character issues. have you not heard Dr Paul speak? he conducts himself with a pride, vigour, and an assurance you can only get when you truly believe what you're saying.
no, he doesn't tick all the boxes, but who does? America has a globally considered fuck-tard at the helm who's record will wreak of grave failure and genocide; hardly the ace of hearts is he?

Dr Paul's strict constitutionalism isn't absurd!
serious question: do you want to live in a world where America aggressively wages war on country's/regions is deems as a threat or goldmine? because thats what you must imply, as strict constitutionalism means obeying the written law of the land.
i'm all for it, government is big business - money, control, power - just check the surplus from the comprehensive annual financial reports, it must be scaled down from the stature it has reached, and the only way to do this is to go back to how it once was. letting it grow is the promise of harder times to come, Ron wants to rewind so i support him.

"and putting us back on the gold standard, are fundamentally opposed to what I think is best for the country."
what do you think is the solution here?

that will suffice for the meantime... i need to shower...

peace.


keep pushing

Click to expand...