Ron Paul

cavedave

here is an article here that investigates a newsletter of Ron Paul's

This describes articles that are racist, homophobic and conspiracy seeing to the point of weirdness. You could explain one article or even a single issue with an explanation of ,someone else wrote that and I did not get a chance to edit it before release, or some such but a series of issues cannot be easily explained this way.

Here is Andrew Sullivan explaining the problem

Gyalist

Sean Paul/Ron Paul

banquo

*Ron Paul 2008*

pretty*monster

Something for the conspiracy nuts: The sweet stench of electoral fraud.

1-7-08: Silvestro the Cat & New Hampshire Elections
UPDATE JAN 9 9am PST: TOWN OF SUTTON CONFIRMS RON PAUL TOTALS WERE 31, NOT ZERO.

I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton. She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were "left off the tally sheet" and it was human error.

This is not an acceptable answer, especially because one of the most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely, transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a summary or media sheet with the incorrect results.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

cavedave

Here is a video of Ron Paul discussing the contents of the magazine with his name on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss

His basic point seems to be that he is not a racist and he is the only candidate that wants to remove racist drug laws.

SteveS

cavedave wrote: »

here is an article here that investigates a newsletter of Ron Paul's

This describes articles that are racist, homophobic and conspiracy seeing to the point of weirdness. You could explain one article or even a single issue with an explanation of ,someone else wrote that and I did not get a chance to edit it before release, or some such but a series of issues cannot be easily explained this way.

Here is Andrew Sullivan explaining the problem

That was disturbing. Even if he had nothing to do with writing the article, it shows that he has little oversight into 'his business' or that he surrounds himself with racist idiots. I really wanted to like him, but I don't think this would be a good trait in a president.

User45701

Well i heard about him a good while ago and hes been the one i want since i heard about him

Beer is Life

Akrasia wrote: »

It does matter because it is an indication of his state of mind.

Would you elect a president who worshipped fairies and thought the world was flat?

A president is elected mostly for his judgement and ability to lead. Ron Paul has shown rubbish judgement and is running on a platform that he doesn't want to lead. (and on the issues that are important to him, would have zero ability to have those policies implimented... do you really think congress and the senate would allow him to scrap the IRS and the fed?)

Can you tell me where Ron Paul has shown rubbish judgement and a lack of an ability to lead?

SteveS

Beer is Life wrote: »

Can you tell me where Ron Paul has shown rubbish judgement and a lack of an ability to lead?

Besides hiring racists and accepting campaign contributions from the head of Stormfront, he hasn't ever gotten a single piece of legislation to pass. He may have some good ideas, but it doesn't do anything if you can't get others to work wth you.

Beer is Life

SteveS wrote: »

Besides hiring racists and accepting campaign contributions from the head of Stormfront, he hasn't ever gotten a single piece of legislation to pass. He may have some good ideas, but it doesn't do anything if you can't get others to work wth you.

Whats he supposed to do, ask everyone he hires, "Are you a racist?". Obviously he doesnt have these sort of beliefs himself, he has NEVER campaigned on racist policies. He has talked positively about MLK, Rosa Parks and Gandhi for example. This video explains the stormfront issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

If he has never gotten a single peice of legislation to pass, why has he been voted one of the 50 most effective members of congress by "Congress Quaterly"? His conressional voting record is second to none, heres a few examples: He has never voted to raise taxes, He has never voted for an unbalanced budget, He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, He has never voted to raise congressional pay, He has never taken a government-paid junket, He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch, He voted against the Patriot Act, He voted against regulating the Internet, He voted against the Iraq war and he does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

stevenmu

It's very refreshing to see someone run based on their own vision of what the government should do and how it should run, as opposed to 99.9% of other politicians who seem to run based on what they think will get them the most votes and make the best sound bites. We could really do with a few Ron Pauls here in Ireland.

Out last election was a joke, we had one side saying "we're doing great keep us in, those other guys will just mess it all up" and the other side saying "those guys are eejits, they're messing it all up, we'd be much better". I don't think I heard a single issue actually being addressed by either side.

SteveS

Beer is Life wrote: »

Whats he supposed to do, ask everyone he hires, "Are you a racist?". Obviously he doesnt have these sort of beliefs himself, he has NEVER campaigned on racist policies. He has talked positively about MLK, Rosa Parks and Gandhi for example. This video explains the stormfront issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

If he has never gotten a single peice of legislation to pass, why has he been voted one of the 50 most effective members of congress by "Congress Quaterly"? His conressional voting record is second to none, heres a few examples: He has never voted to raise taxes, He has never voted for an unbalanced budget, He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, He has never voted to raise congressional pay, He has never taken a government-paid junket, He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch, He voted against the Patriot Act, He voted against regulating the Internet, He voted against the Iraq war and he does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

I haven't a clue why Congressional Quarterly voted him one of the 50 most effective members. Their website doesn't list this in any of their press releases and I am not a member, so I can't do a serach on their site. The only other reference is on Paul's site.

I am very familiar with his record. I have been hearing about him for over a decade and I like the fact that he has said no to a lot of stuff. That being said, as ,uch as I don't like paying income taxes, I don't see the wisdom in eliminating the IRS or the Federal Reserve. I also don't think returning to the gold standard is a great idea. You can check his record of proposed legislation. I haven't found anything that passed. I am not saying that none of it was good, but if he is unable to work with Congress or the Supreme Court, then nothing will get done.

Whats he supposed to do, ask everyone he hires, "Are you a racist?". Obviously he doesnt have these sort of beliefs himself, he has NEVER campaigned on racist policies. He has talked positively about MLK, Rosa Parks and Gandhi for example. This video explains the stormfront issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

He is supposed to have some oversight into what goes into a newsletter with his name on it. If he doesn't agree, I'd expect him to fire the person that wrote the stuff. What has he said positive about MLK? He didn't exaclty sing the praises of MLK in this piece.

He also said the Civil War was not needed and blasted Lincoln. I am not some Lincoln apologist, but I can't think of a reputable historian that doesn't think the Civil War was ineveitable as long as the South adhered to the policies they did.

kaiser sauze

Ron Paul would be great for the US, but not really for the world.

His policies would be akin to the ticket the G Dub got in back in 2000 on, no nation building and minimal intervention. The only thing is that his is not lies like G Dub's turned out to be.

The question has been raised about his stance on gays and I can't find a direct answer on his site URL="http://www.ronpaul2008.com"]Ron Paul 2008[/URL, but I would be surprised if he was anti-gay as he has a very big civil liberties agenda and this could encompass gay rights.

Why would his presidency be bad for the world:

Withdrawal from NAFTA, IMF, World Bank, UN, ICC and pretty much every other worthy multi-national agreement.