Are Ron Paul's antiwar views attractive enough to overlook his white supremacist views?

[hiaasenrocks]

Or are people just not aware of his writings in the "Ron Paul Survival Report" and the support he's getting from white supremacist groups (and at least one website, which I won't like here but has the word "Storm" in it, for those who know what I'm talking about)?

Please tell me people just aren't aware of that stuff. If they ARE, and they're still supporting him (or even interested in him, as some here SEEM to be) then we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

[dflprincess]

1. I think most people are not aware of his other views

The only thing that gets much media play is his being an "anit-war Republican".

[onehandle]

2. I have run into one person who was for him for his antiwar views and knew nothing else about him.

I educated her.

There are a lot of politically foolish people out there.

Which explains this poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3688155&mesg_id=3688155

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. I think most aren't aware but I think his hardcore supporters are

Sadly, I think it makes them support him more. :(

[bemildred]

4. I have no plans to vote in Republican primaries, so I don't care much about Ron Paul.

I don't really see why he is even an issue here (although I do see that he gets some people excited.)

[hiaasenrocks]

9. So we only discuss issues w/in the Democratic Party here?

That's news to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3688155&mesg_id=3688155

Look, Ron Paul is making a lot of noise, his numbers are going up, and he's raising a lot of money. If that string of events doesn't warrant discussion about his true beliefs, then, well, I guess you don't have to join the discussion. Thanks anyway.

[bemildred]

15. You can discuss anything you want. So can I.

But I don't come here to agonize over Republican candidates who will lose, and I don't really understand people that do. But knock yourself out, have a good time.

[hiaasenrocks]

18. LOL.

You've now posted twice in a thread about a subject you claim not to care about. Are the other threads that boring? :)

Odd.

[bemildred]

20. I often post on subjects I don't care about.

It's more a matter of being amusing than boring. When people get worked up about subjects you don't care about, it can be very amusing. Do you only post about things you care deeply about? Does it get you all twisted in knots inside? How do you feel about Chemtrails?

[hiaasenrocks]

22. That's three now.

You're obviously just looking for an argument. Go for a walk. Do something constructive. I'll leave this to you.

:hi:

[bemildred]

25. Oh yeah, hell yes! This is four now. I'm really hooked.

Who knows when I will be able to tear myself away?

[bemildred]

21. Hiassen writes amusing drivel. Do you think he should stop writing? nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. I don't plan to go to Iraq, but I still talk about the place sometimes.

[bemildred]

32. I care about Iraq a heck of a lot more than I care about Ron Paul.

But for the record, I never said anybody ought not talk about Ron Paul, I said I don't give a shit, which is a relevant comment about the subject, even if it annoys people who fancy discussing Ron Paul in minute detail.

[RB TexLa]

5. I don't think people voting in republican primaries are that concerned with it.

[TheUniverse]

6. Can you judge Ron Paul by the people who support him?

Has Ron Paul ever attended any White Power meetings or given any kind of support to the white power movement, verbal or economic? If he has, than this is a fair criticism. If not, then I wouldn't criticise him for who is supporting him. Every candidate has supporters they rather would not have.

[hiaasenrocks]

7. Yes.

Especially when his writings match the views of those who are supporting him.

Look up "Ron Paul Survival Report" and judge for yourself.

[TheUniverse]

14. Here's something I found

" Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740


Supposedly Ron Paul wrote that. If he did, he has some major explaining to do. Thanks for showing me this.

[hiaasenrocks]

19. Good work. At least one person in this thread thinks you should bury your head in the sand

and ignore the racist and radical views of people who are running for president.

Anyway, those are words from the report I was talking about. Odd that he hasn't been forced to address them yet.

[Basileus Basileon]

13. I can judge him by the reasons they have for supporting him. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

8. I think it is great that he is a wedge being driven into the Republican Party.

Hopefully his candidacy will peal off a bunch of libertarian leaning Republican voters, who will actually take a look at the fascist theocrats they have been supporting for the last 30 years, and stop voting Republican at all.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Exactly right - the better he does the greater his chances of splitting the GOP vote.

and that would be a shame.............Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

[rwheeler31]

10. Clueless but anti war, some of his bunch are so sad .

[marmar]

11. And beyond his racist blatherings .....

His anti-government views are very disturbing. Some of them make Bush seem like a socialist.

[hiaasenrocks]

29. Very true. The vast majority of his views are totally unrealistic.

Which just adds another aspect to the mystery of why people are supporting him without thinking/researching/etc.

[baldguy]

12. He;s not anti-war. He's anti- War Powers Resolution.

[lonestarnot]

17. NO! He's a fucking pug and if you don't know what that means to you look it up.

[razors edge]

23. There are a lot of pissed off people out there.

And they disagree with every candidate on one issue or another. But they will have to accept someone they disagree with on some points, won't they?

For the far right, Rudie dressing in drag, supporting liberal ideas, and being shoved down their throats isn't playing as well as the neo cons would like.

For the far left, Hillary is producing the same results.

Each party will at some point have to make a decision, do we stick with the same old s**t that tells our constituents we don't really give a shit about them as long as we retain/gain power, or do we pull back from the game long enough to present a face that at least looks like what we preach.

If the Democrats don't nominate Kucinich, the Republicans don't need to counter with Paul, simple as that.

So I don't think you need to worry too much about it. The Democrats seem to believe they can keep on the same path without any problems.


Unless both of them get thrown to curb and decide to run together as Independents on the same ticket, that would be a whole new issue now wouldn't it?

[hiaasenrocks]

24. It's not a matter of whether Paul will win the nomination.

It's just troubling to see that so many (even some here on DU) are intrigued by this guy and probably have no idea what he stands for, outside of his antiwar views.

His numbers are up. He's raising a good deal of money. People respect him.

Not good.

[bemildred]

26. Yeah, heck yes, who cares about the nomination anyway?

Mere trivia, that.

[hiaasenrocks]

27. Just so you don't waste your time, you're on ignore^^^

[bemildred]

28. Good. A useful feature. nt

[razors edge]

31. A lot of stuff

is taken out of context and distorted, that is the case for any candidate.

The average person will not research the claim if it fits their view, and there is much distortion that goes on here about our own candidates.

I have seen posts delineating Paul's atrocities, including his proposed amendment on flag burning, when in fact he proposed the amendment to force the issue. He railed against it and forced the flag protectors to put up or shut up, amend the constitution or go home and tell your constituents the law you proposed didn't mean as much to you as you claimed, since you weren't prepared to do away with the first amendment. The majority of his bills are against our ideals.

I have been present for the birth of my two sons, and I can understand the fact that someone who devoted a large portion of their career to safely delivering babies would not agree with abortion. I don't feel my respect for his position in anyway interferes with my feelings for a woman's right to chose, which I support. I can disagree without hate, without demeaning the person I disagree with.

I respect his strengths and oppose his views on most things, I oppose all the views of every other candidate on the rest of the republican side, not only because they are the same views we all do not agree with about Paul, but because they don't have the strength of conviction to stand up and hold those views proudly and debate them respectfully to the opposition, these are the Republicans I cannot respect.

Respect your opponent, if he is worthy of respect. Underestimate your opponent and loose.

Who of the Republican candidates do you respect more than Ron Paul?