No Libertarian fascist needs to be heard.

or a lesser evil than Paul? Hard to fathom.

So the question from that point of view is more whether Paul is a lesser evil than the Obama/Romney ghost candidate, since they're "not different."

Paul would "trash the economy" as another DUer put it, likely shut down government, put a wrench into all social programs.

He represents the greatest evil when it comes to capitalism.

You will not find the words you falsely attribute to me in any of my posts. You should at least apologize for punctuating these words of your own invention as though they are direct quotes from me (and equally for besmirching my reputation for good spelling).

Because I've never said Paul desperately needs to be heard; find someone who did and argue with them, if that's your preference.

Rather, I've said that this generally insupportable right-wing ideologue is unfortunately also the only presidential candidate raising the central big-picture life-or-death issue of empire.

I have said that it should shame left-liberals that they are not addressing the issue of empire. Rather, they are distracting away from it while the perpetual war continues, and while the government passes laws to grant legality to the unconstitutional outrages (like indefinite detention) that were equally evil under Bush, but only ad-hoc at the time.

Democrats who still have principles should want Paul to get the nomination for at least two reasons: 1) he is far likelier to lose than Romney; 2) he will force debate (and possibly even leftward motion from Obama) on issues of empire, perpetual war, drug war and the security state's assault on civil rights. The national discourse can only benefit from that. A Romney candidacy instead will allow the bipartisan consensus to continue holding the Pentagon and our 101 security agencies sacrosanct.

I suspect the real problem Paul poses for reflexive defenders of the status quo (long as it's got a "D" after it) is in the latter. (If you were brutally honest about your own views, you'd have to admit that without a world-spanning, trillion-dollar-wasting military monstrosity destabilizing foreign lands and bankrupting this country, we wouldn't be able to perform the humanitarian bombings of distant countries that you have so vocally supported on this board.)

On matters economic, it is absurd to think a Romney presidency would be better than any of the other Republicans, including Paul. Romney is 100 percent for direct plunder by the 1 percent. Regressive taxation, higher corporate subsidies, incentives for outsourcing, massive cuts to social programs, punitive measures against the poor are all guaranteed. Paul might be right in identifying the bankers as villains in the piece, but that's about it. He offers harebrained non-solutions that would allow basically the same thing: further concentration of wealth for the fewest, further impoverishment for the most.

Furthermore, any of these Republicans other than Paul are guaranteed, if they should gain the White House, to start a war with Iran; and that would be both the greatest crime and the biggest economic disaster of all for the world.

Think about it. Ron Paul's ultra-nationalist crack pottery means that Obama does not have to shift one iota on issues that actually do matter to American people. Obama wants votes. Ron Paul says "I'll leave Afghanistan immediately!" Obama responds with "Without assuring that the country is stable, without taking responsibility for the Afghan people?"

Romney comes in and says "I'll leave Afghanistan when I decide it's time to leave." Obama responds with, "I've already outlined a plan when we'll leave." There, Obama has doubled down on leaving Afghanistan under the timetable he already committed to. People forget that Obama won because he said he was going to escalate in Afghanistan, go after the Taliban, and leave Iraq.

I have much much more to say on this but I have to go, and cannot keep typing, but I do not think for an instant that Ron Paul's views on a national platform would help us push Obama to the left in any way.

And I apologize if you thought I was referring to you, I wasn't. I was pointing out that one person who said Ron Paul's views need to be heard (Greenwald) also views Romney and Obama as close to the same and that their ideas will converge. I was saying, from that perspective that argument could be made. If you agree with that perspective then the question becomes is Ron Paul a lesser evil than Romney. I wasn't saying you agreed with that perspective. I was throwing out some strawman to see if you'd bite, sorry.

With this clown show, nothing is certain. I think Ron Paul can sell himself in South Carolina and let's no forget he's got money, all those independently wealthy libertarians.

That was roughly 1/3 of what he got in Iowa that year.

So pencil him in for 7% in SC.

Another way to look at it -- Paul doubled his 2008 Iowa vote tonight so he is twice as popular as in 2008 when he got 3.6% in SC.

So pencil him in for 7% in SC.

It would be a fascinating political event to observe, however...

There is no liberal support of Doctor Monkey Pancakes. He would only split GOP votes.

came from moderates and liberals.

He won 50% of the youth vote.

He would drain Obama votes if he ran as an Independent.

Sad to say that Obama does not seem to want to move toward Ron Paul on civil liberties, drug policy or foreign interventions in order to re-energize his youth base. Even sadder to see young people buying into Ron Paul's idiotic monetary ideas because Obama has done absolutely nothing to improve their economic prospects.

major candidate strongly coming out against an obviously, De Facto, racist drug war.

What does that say about the supposed moderates?

Because idiots were caucusing for him.

He will help us more than hurt us if he
runs as an independent.

IMO.

Republican caucuses. Can you tell us where you get your information, please? There are lots of young people in the Republican Party. Why should we believe that these are moderates and liberals. Perhaps you have some unique insight. If so, can you tell us a bit about how you gained that insight? Are you located in Iowa?

You'd think someone with as much glorious support, including an OWS call to action, would've got more votes than half of the 15% of the "youth vote" (29 or younger).

Ignoring the fact that there are plenty of young people who are Republicans is another element. Yes, there are young people who are big Ron Paul supporters. I wouldn't be surprised if they showed up at the GOP caucuses. I can't imagine why anyone would be surprised. To characterize them as moderates and liberals, though, is a real stretch.

*horks

I've asked for some more details on where those claims come from and how they're supported. I'll be patiently waiting for a reply.

I've been posting on DU for almost a decade because I'm secretly a fan of nutso Austrian school economics.

Now I can admit that it's all been part of my master plot to try and throw the economy into a massive depression:

First spend 8 years protesting Bush's supply-side neoconservative policies.

Then spend a year pushing for broad financial reform and criminal prosecution of control frauds.

Then spend 3 years promoting Modern Monetary Theory and post-Keynesian progressive economic policies.

Then in 01/12, slyly support the candidate who wants a return to the gold standard - an idea which stands in stark opposition to the "character" I've spent the last 10 years developing.

Genius, right?

And you managed to expose me because I slipped up and accidentally noted the results of a CNN exit poll. Those are some mad detective skills, yo!

... folks will go straight to claiming bullshit without bothering to do a 3 minute google.

Anyone that doesn't understand why the libertarian party (which I agree with 100% except for anything to do with business or economics which I agree with 0%) is attracting young people really DOES NOT have their finger anywhere near the pulse of American politics.

...how much Ron Paul drained from Democrats. I'm sure he drained some, and will continue to do so, but until we have those numbers we won't know.

According to the following source ...

http://www.issues2000.org/Ross_Perot.htm

... "Ross Perot is a Moderate Liberal."

How would you describe Ron Paul's political philosophy in a couple of words?

We have very high rates of youth unemployment, a large swath of young people saddled with insurmountable debts and poor prospects.

These people see the money being spent to prop up the police state and expand the war machine. They see the rich getting richer. They are the first to endure the fallout from austerity. They are unhappy with the status quo. This is not 1992.

A man who is opposed to a women's right to make her own personal medical decisions is no supporter of civil liberties. Period.

It will be, anyhow, but certainly it will if Ron Paul runs.

I saw a bunch of 'em today. Ugh!

Our maybe he's just spending someone else's money - that's what they do best.

At this point I suspect his goal is a speaking slot at the convention and he'll need a couple of hundred delgates for that. He'll pick up a few here or there. (I think there are roughly 2400 delegates total)

You pay attention to them, though. One is a load of news clips (taken completely out of context) showing commenters and talking heads saying things like "He's a consistent conservative" "He's the only one with a consistent message" and things of that nature.

I'm tired of the Ron Paul culture wars. I wish that one trick pony would go back to Texas and leave us decent people alone.

... but I'm afraid we'll have to keep listening to Paulite freaks for years to come.

Obama could win 80% of the popular vote and take all 535 electoral votes, the Congress could have 320 Dems, and the Senate 75 Dems, and Paulites will still be there babbling.

I'm not sure if they're the 60s Reaganites (God forbid) or the LaRoushies. Either way, I'm really tired of their cult of personality.

If not, what's your suggestion for 2012? Do tell...

You don't have to agree with someone completely or disagree completely, nuance is possible.

My point is that I don't want right wing policy even when it comes from Democrats, evidently this is some kind of radical position on DU now that makes one a Paul supporter.

Pointing out that Democrats are enacting right wing policies does not imply that someone would rather move even further right as your question would suggest.

We deserve the politicians we have in office because we elect them.

As it stands now, the progressive caucus makes up 31% of the Democrats in Congress.

20% more with a Democratic Congress and big stuff happens!

We celebrated the Blue Dogs being ousted even though they vote with Democrats 80-90% of the time (and the 31% of Progressives, ie, far left Democrats).

And the Democrats have been moving to the right for over half my life.

Why would I expect such a long standing trend to change?

Hopefully you are in good health my man, and you'll see it happen!

The entire history of the world is one way, imho, good trumps evil!

It kind of lets you relive a lot of the stages of your own life in a vicarious way, you get to see the same decisions you made as a child from the outside.

Now I'm watching it in yet another generation I've been helping raise.

We are none of us so different no matter what we might think about it.

The Progressive Caucus is the largest non-party caucus in the Congress.

It would be extremely powerful.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Caucus-wise the Democratic Progressive caucus is almost 4 times the Blue Dog Coalition and almost twice the size of the New Democrat Coalition. The New Democrat Coalition is the moderate, Progressive is the left, Blue Dog is the conservative.

Blue Dogs have been ousted.

Embrace the moderates and stop being picky and elect progressives when possible.

Good things would then happen.

One of the few advantages of getting older is that you gain perspective, eventually you come to realize that mist falling on your head isn't really rain at all.

Overall the Democratic Party is more represented by the left than it was before the Blue Dogs were ousted (which is why one could celebrate the ouster of the Blue Dogs despite that our sitting home in 2010 made us lose quite a few progressives in the blowback).

Question is, do we elect New Democrats and more Progressives, or do we falter, and allow the right wing to control the narrative as they have for the past decade (after 20 years of propaganda to get to that point, oh, and terrorist attacks and fear mongering)?

I'd be OK with one New Democrat for every new Progressive. 20 new Progressives, 10 New Democrats. That leaves you with a 103 member CPC and 78 New Democrats.

But the media will not care.

Paul was in all the primaries in 2008 even after the field was supposedly down to McCain and Huckabee. The media just decided that he didn't matter and that was that.

I think he'd be a great monkey wrench in the cogs of the GOP machine.

The handful of idiots here who love the dude don't concern me. I want him to do to the Republican nomination what they attempt to do here everyday.

Though it is hard to say.

Most Paul voters probably wouldn't vote in the primaries otherwise.

I kinda think the Paul supporters, at least the ones in Iowa, have sort of "assimilated" to acting like typical Republicans, but some of his supporters are true believer who don't fit any mold the GOP wants any part of.

That was a pre-caucus poll so I'd have to look back at the data to see if I could confirm that though.

and they are not willing to put up with the Washington Status Quo anymore. Watch for a strong 3rd Party Candidate that will appeal to a large segment of the total electorate. It ain't over till it's over!

He's been a politician for a long time, but he's got you folks hoodwinked into think he's never been to Washington.

Except to sanity, perhaps.

And I hate to be an ageist - but he is 77 years old. If he already has memory issues about what he's been doing the past 40 years then . . .

The GOP are totally against both of these positions, so rack up a victory for the republican establishment.

Romney will now cruise to the nomination, Santorum is already auditioning to be his VP from the interview I saw him do tonight.

Paul is no supporter of civil liberties.

He's a racist and opposed to women's rights - specifically women's right to make their own personal medical decisions about whether to carry a pregnancy to term. You simply don't get any more basic than that.

Oppose the right to control one's own body and you do not support civil liberties.

He's a complete fraud.

Never underestimate the power of Fanatical Followers!

his followers - as others have pointed out - fanatics. they will push Ron Paul as far as possible in the realm of the GOP - and then they will urge him to run as a Libertarian for prez if he loses a couple more primaries/caucuses. so no - i don't think we've heard the end of Ron Paul - not by a long shot. And he did come in third - above Gingrich even.

There will never be another state where he has a chance of winning and the media will treat him as a curiosity, not a candidate.

Now if he runs as an indepenent? Yes, then we would hear more about him. I strongly suspect that he isn't going to do that but I agree that it would be a big story.

And in literal terms, we heard more from him three or four posts above yours. The Paul trolls will be around for some time.

after that if he comes in less than second we'll see less - but yeah it's gonna be about Romney/Santorum for now - however since Santorum (ewww gross) is so new in terms of being on the national radar, and Ron Paul did come in third, I'm afraid we're going to be seeing more of Ron Paul than you're gonna like - for at least a little while longer. Doh.

http://www.simpsonschannel.com/2008/10/homer-tries-to-vote-for-obama/

Poor little rich girl, sniff.

the original

While the title is the same, they are very different songs.

since, as I said, I am not a fan

bolt the GOP and run third party! Heck I would love to see floor fights between Paultards, Romneybots and other flat earthers at the fascist rethug convention!

I want to see the teabagger Götterdämmerung in all its incredible glory!! Yippee!!

you know the rest.

he'd get the nomination...I just want a complete, out-in-the-open, full frontal repudiation of his views...I wanted every past interview to get used against him as he tried to explain his contradictions...I wanted his fanboys on the left, center and right, the OWS crowd, the NORML crowd, LPUSA crowd and anti-war crowd to see him exposed for the empty soundbite that he is...

The man is nothing but the far right version of Chauncey Gardener...I said that back in '08 and it's no less true now...But just like '08 Paul will soon get the party memo and drop out like the good lackey he is, still playing up his "outside anti-establishment" creds while his fans bellow that he's too "real" for American politics...

who wants to repeal the civil rights act and bring back separate and unequal treatment of the races?

I mean damn, signs like Whites Only, blacks sit in the back of the bus, etc, etc. Ron Paul is all for it!

I don't get why a young person would want to relive those nightmares of our past.

I mean Kelly friggen Clarkson came out in support of this racist dirtbag! I don't get it....

To quote from an article that won't be popular here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

"It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court."

To be fair, the above quote doesn't even get into the issue that Ron Paul's economic policies aren't remotely viable, but to harp on his racism as the major problem with his candidacy is something of a red herring. Young people will "support a racist" in the same sense as many people here will "support a guy who kills brown children in foreign countries". Both are inflammatory statements that fail to recognize that there is no candidate in either party who doesn't have serious issues that progressives should be upset about.

They don't give a rat's ass about racists behavior, because if they are not a minority, it doesn't affect them....and looking at their MO, most are of the White Frat type anti-establishment types, and not much more.

These supporters of Ron Paul care very little about many things, which is evident, and therefore, makes them no better than anyone else...although they believe truly that they are the better thinkers.

Obama's supporters don't give a rat's ass about muslim children dying, because if they aren't muslims living in a foreign country, it doesn't affect them...

These supporters of Barrack Obama care very little about many things, which is evident, and therefore, makes them no better than anyone else...although they believe truly that they are the better thinkers.

See how easy that is to grossly over simplify things? Everyone has a collection of "third rail" issues that they are passionate about, and everyone has a collection of other people's "third rail" issues that they comfortably ignore. It's a feature/bug of our political system.

and Ron Paul is a proud Republican.....

So You must be confused as who really cares about what.

Obama Supporters support the President who is ending these fucked wars,
while Ron Paul and his supporters are only offering promises about what
he might do if he would be elected (which ain't never gonna happen)....

But keep on defending the racist asshole(s).
That's your special privilege as an American!

Obama could end drone attacks that kill kids instantly by ordering the military to stop. He could do it with a single phone call. Maybe by the end of his next term, he'll be killing kids at a slower rate (though I personally doubt it).

See? We can ignore what we want about any candidate we like.

My point is not in support of Ron Paul. My point is that when people ask questions like "why can young people support this racist?" the answer is that it's more complicated than that. If you want to focus on one aspect of a candidate, it makes it fair to focus on one aspect of our president, when in reality, the support for both our president and for Ron Paul are more complicated than the single issue that you'd like to boil it down to.

just correcting one of your exaggerations....

All American Presidents in our history have been baby killers than....
and Ron Paul would be no different, no matter what he "promises"....
since he wouldn't have a congress to do any of what he preaches....
which is why, although soul stirring, his talk is truly empty rethoric,
cynical at its best.

And yes, many things are complicated.....
especially foreign policy.

Wish it was all supa' simple,
and we could all sing kumbaya as Ron Paul pretends it can
be done.....when even he knows damn well he's just preaching
unatainable pie-in-the-sky.

In the meantime, please be proud to minimize racism for those who don't mind us
Americans dying in the streets without social security or medicare.....
and don't mind seeing a woman dying while giving birth to her rapist's baby,
or us drinking contaminated water or abolishing the Education Department....

Go ahead and equate that to our American Foreign policy (which has vastly improved no matter how much you want to naysay) under Obama's 3 years in office, since it is what you choose
to do.

I have to admit that until a few weeks ago I thought Paul was just a nutso crazy. Then all of his words and beliefs came to light. It's clear - he has serious issues about killing foreign babies but "brown" children in America are fair game. Say what one will of Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, Obama - he'll even Carter (Presidents in my lifetime) . . . A few might have barely tolerated me - but I never felt absolute hatred towards me.

I don't think I can say the same for Paul. I don't think he just says things for attention though - I think he truly deeply believes the bs he has spewed over the years.

...you're gravely mistaken. If a terrorist attack happens he'd simply hire a private corporation to do his dirty business and lock it up in a secret file for decades until it finally came to light.

Obama's targeting killing approach is deplorable, even unacceptable, but he does it because the American people want blood, and always will. It's a campaign promise kept, as disgusting as that sounds.

...killing for a long time to come. The ends don't justify the means, I agree. Except I highly doubt that McCain would've embraced islamists as much as Obama has. Don't take this the wrong way. When Ben Ali was asked to be ousted, McCain would've likely sent in mercs to take care of the protestors, he would've backed Mubarak too, and the Arab Spring would've been silenced by the highly xenophobic and racist view that Republicans have for islamists and muslims.

Obama's focus on terrorists specifically sends the right message, as opposed to Bush's racist policy that all Arabs are bad. Even though that message is wrongly sent with hellfire missiles and drones.

Yeah I guess you are right.

But, but....

President Paul would let us smoke pot so its all good!

Damn what has happened to this country....

Asking "Are you against the surveillance state?" will garner a wonderful, flowery response from Ron Paul.

Asking "Would you ban corporations from spying on people?" will garner a stuttering idiotic reply.

Likewise, even on progressive sites he is continually touted as someone who is for progressive ideas, when in reality he is not.

*Slashing Military Spending

*Repudiation of the Unitary Executive, The Patriot Act, and the Orwellian War on Terror

*Downsizing and redefining the Mission of our Military

*Restoration of the Bill of Rights

*Ending the failed and senseless War on Some Drugs

The GREAT Majority of Liberal Democrats support those issues.
However, none that I know support Ron Paul.

I pray those critical issues still get some oxygen,
and maybe some acknowledgment from the Democratic Party.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

Santorum won't.

This can't hurt him.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/04/al-gore-says-republicans-should-dismiss-ron-paul-as-a-silly-candidate/

Paulites are a determined lot.

Thanks for the laugh! His acolytes are fanatical!

He'll be there, like it or not!

I hope he sticks around for a few months!!!

Then he'll split the GOP vote because liberals and progressives don't bloc vote and he'll only take the white male liberal vote and gum up the entire primary for the Republicans. He might even have a shot (remote) at speaking at the Republican convention.

Trust me, even after the old coot is dead and gone, they'll be talking about how wonderful he is.

The OP just meant that the media would put him back in the kook closet after not winning Iowa outright.