Ron Paul Rises

[archibaldcrane]

You don't have to be bought when your entire platform is "let the rich fuck anyone and everyone to any extent imaginable, it's not the government's business."

I was going to jump in and say "well then why haven't they backed him hardcore?"

but then I realized it's because noone thinks he could actually win and they don't want him mucking the election up for candidates they already own.

Although actually businesses don't want an even playing field - they want subsidies and tax breaks in their favor, which presumably a "libertarian" would eliminate. So yeah, in a way, some industries/dominant corporations wouldn't want a RP presidency.

[Plow]

Yeah, there's a really simple and obvious reason that someone like Perry had every bank in the world lining up to throw cash at him if he'd agree to run, and it's not because his goals would be any different at all than RP's.

[Talint]

Here's some nice crazy batshit stuff from Ron Paul's newsletters from the 80s and 90s.

Highlights:

"[Gay people] enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you've got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for."

"No kissing, since AIDS can be transmitted by saliva."

"Do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities."

[Mazmaz]

Sorry, I just don't see what the point of him writing that stuff would've been. I don't think he's lying about that part.

[Cail]

lulz

[Plow]

I was going to jump in and say "well then why haven't they backed him hardcore?"

but then I realized it's because noone thinks he could actually win and they don't want him mucking the election up for candidates they already own.

Although actually businesses don't want an even playing field - they want subsidies and tax breaks in their favor, which presumably a "libertarian" would eliminate. So yeah, in a way, some industries/dominant corporations wouldn't want a RP presidency.

If he were a libertarian, sure.

He's not, though. He's an 18th century prospector, er, hard line conservative.

His answer and excuse to basically every question that matters, which would pretty much all expose him as a thoughtless dirge of a time past (which was not a pleasant one at all), is to dodge by arguing "well things aren't how they should be, so we should just take advantage of the system because not enough people will agree to fix it."

[Gregorio]

Shit telling people to keep their family out of the inner city isn't crazy, it's good advice.

[Kerberoz]

Libertarian* = someone who lacks meta-awareness or has never learned an ounce of game theory. Systems tend toward equilibrium. Getting rid of all restrictions and regulations will just lead to a short-term scramble to reach the top, with the winners then re-imposing those restrictions and regulations on their competition. You can't get rid of "big gub'ment" because it's a result of the free market, in the first place.

*Prole-type, as opposed to the already-rich-type who knows it's bullshit.

[Demosthenes11]

rofl

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/2...t-newsletters/

[Mansin]

Faced with problems? Run from them. Sounds like a good candidate to me!

[Demosthenes11]

I bet test123 posts on reddit - they have a serious boner for RP as well and their comments on him look eerily similar to his

[Elrina]

He didn't run from them? I think he pretty answered pretty clearly, and when they began harassing him about them despite that, then he left. What's the point in talking to media who refuse to accept an answer and continues to harass you about something because they want to make you look bad? From the very article Demo linked:

“I never read that stuff,” Paul responded. “I became aware of it probably ten years after it was written, and it has been going on for twenty years that people have been pestering me about this, and CNN does it every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out?”

“I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them at the time, and I disavow them,” he added, when pressed about the issue.

I mean seriously, that's as direct a response as you can get. Why stay if they want to continue harassing the man about that one thing instead of moving on with the interview?


At the moment, personally, I care much more about a President's view regarding war, oppression, censorship, and liberty than their social beliefs they can't do much about without cooperation from the congress and senate.

It's easy to attack Ron Paul. However, between the congress, senate and the Supreme Court, there's only so much he can do directly. There are realistic things he could accomplish, and most of those (that I know of, anyway) are good things, some of which are pretty immediately imperative and won't happen if anyone else is elected.

Generally, the way I'm thinking of it at the moment is like I said earlier. The entire range of current potentials, from Obama to every one of the Republican candidates other than Paul, will not only continue extending the National State of Emergency, but continue war time policies and furthering war time goals, as well as actually continuing to go to war with new countries. Not only that, but it's already been made clear Obama intends to sign the NDAA sometime in the next few days, and if SOPA/PIPA ever make it to him there is zero reason to believe he would veto that either.

I can live without a growth of social programs and social liberties for 4 years (considering that the checks and balances will prevent their regression) if it means ending war time policy, the state of emergency, and setting in place a few years of precedent without them. With some of the things Bush started, and put into place, and that Obama is continuing, through to the passing of the NDAA and heavy contemplation regarding SOPA/PIPA, as well as shit like SMISC and other Cyber Intel bills I've seen proposed recently, I'd like to have someone who's actually willing to veto blatant 1984-style oppression to prevent it from becoming modern day US Law.

Because Obama won't veto them. Neither will Romney, Gingrich, or any of the other clowns the Republicans have put forward. Who else is there that's running for President?

[Talint]

He didn't run from them? I think he pretty answered pretty clearly, and when they began harassing him about them despite that, then he left. What's the point in talking to media who refuse to accept an answer and continues to harass you about something because they want to make you look bad? From the very article Demo linked:

I mean seriously, that's as direct a response as you can get. Why stay if they want to continue harassing the man about that one thing instead of moving on with the interview?

If you looked on the page I linked to down near the bottom; there's a nice hand-written note soliciting for more subscriptions for his newsletter, on personalized stationary, signed by him.

Maybe it's fake and it is all just stuff he had no idea that was being published in his name. I'd like to think that, even if this is the case, it should still raise the question of, "wtf Ron Paul, how do you let this go on in your name and not fucking stop it, if you really think it's that bad?"

Caveat emptor.

[Mansin]

Considering he has responded to them on multiple occasions otherwise and is now claiming he "didn't read them", I'd call that running.

[archibaldcrane]

Does anyone actually think he believes the shit in those newsletters?

Serious question.

[Elrina]

I don't know, I still don't plan on voting for him, and don't really feel the need for an extended defense at the moment. Maybe it's true, and it's disappointing. Maybe it's just a sad mistake he made decades ago by not paying more attention to subordinates, which has now permanently latched onto him. Either way, I think he honestly doesn't believe the shit that's in them, myself (and to me, that's all that matters at this point in time, since they were written decades ago).

I've said several times before that I don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. It just seems like there are issues of a more pressing and devastatingly serious nature, that are progressively becoming larger and worse. And looking to the future, it only appears as if they're going to continue growing worse faster, until they have become impossible to ignore and almost impossible to reverse.

Looking at the Presidential landscape, with the last decade in mind, the last few years under Obama in mind, it appears as if there is only one person who intends on stopping that progression and doing what he can to reverse it before it reaches that point. And, crazy as he is, that's Ron Paul.

[Plow]

you know that crazy fucking old guy that completely missed out on the civil rights movement and you just roll your eyes every time they talk?


that's ron paul until he decided he might have a chance at something above texas representative


and now he claims he knew nothing about the Ron Paul newsletter for 20 some years, and had nothing to do with it

[Eaglestrike]

Actually in that article about him walking out on the CNN interview he states he found out about it 10 years ago, was too late to do anything, so he just shoved it under the rug and moved on.

[Talint]

Does anyone actually think he believes the shit in those newsletters?

Serious question.

I don't doubt the man might have changed his mind, or at least decided to be less incendiary. I'd take it with a grain of salt though; everyone praises his "consistency". Why wouldn't the man be consistent about that?

Of course, if he admitted that he did in fact write for the newsletter and that it was a mistake (which he has, actually), then it kind of throws the "consistency" persona he's building for himself out the window now, doesn't it?

Additionally, the real problem with the newsletters is that, if you're going to vote for the guy, then you're giving a tacit legitimacy to what was said with your vote. Are you really comfortable voting for that guy?

I'm not, but then again my priorities aren't the same as everyone else.

[guartz]

I don't doubt the man might have changed his mind, or at least decided to be less incendiary. I'd take it with a grain of salt though; everyone praises his "consistency". Why wouldn't the man be consistent about that?

Of course, if he admitted that he did in fact write for the newsletter and that it was a mistake (which he has, actually), then it kind of throws the "consistency" persona he's building for himself out the window now, doesn't it?

Additionally, the real problem with the newsletters is that, if you're going to vote for the guy, then you're giving a tacit legitimacy to what was said with your vote. Are you really comfortable voting for that guy?

I'm not, but then again my priorities aren't the same as everyone else.

tacit legitimacy? To what? His personal bias? ... better that then tacit legitimacy to a war that slaughters thousands?

I mean, did you really just bring up tacit legitimacy?