I hope that is the case. Mitt has a long way to go to clinch it, although the insiders and mainstream have coalesced around him already.

Let Ron Paul keep the spotlight on our empire building and war on drugs. It's the Republican party and its quite amazing we agree on that much.....

He might even get a speaking spot this go around.

Question is whether he'll maintain enough votes to be able to participate in debates. Once he's ousted from the debates his "anti-war message" will no longer exist.

But his supports are very loyal and his "anti war message" won't go away...

I expect him to deny Mitt and the anti-Mitt enough votes for either of them to get a majority, except in perhaps a few state caucuses (where Paul will do well in a few of them) or 'home' states. If he can get about 20-25% of the vote most places, his supporters will encourage him to run third party, which will siphon off Repuke votes

....paul is mostly liberty, individual-centric -- Progressives are mostly liberty, group-centric....big functional difference, but we both share a focus on liberty....

....the fascist corporate pukes are only focused on the wealthy 1%....so he naturally irritates the puke establishment while tickling us and the kids....

....the devil is always in the detail....

Does liberty let people starve in the streets, go without health care, eat out of trash cans when you get too old to work, let working people get screwed, allow employers to discriminate at will to any employee, allow polluters to pollute, (need I go on here?), etc.

Paul's version of libertarianism has nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with greed. It shouldn't be confused with actual liberty.

....I agree with your sentiments, however....wouldn't paul agrue liberty/freedom is the right to freely start a business in the marketplace and that would include the right to starve if you fail?

....Progressives on the other hand, would argue liberty/freedom is the right to collectively come together to form a Union to manage the inequities of the marketplace and to provide backup if you fail....

....both seek to allow people the liberty/freedom to pursue their desires and interests as they see it, but the two trajectories are dramatically different....that's all I was trying to convey....

I don't believe one can say you have the right to freely start a business if you don't have equal access to capital. Paul would argue that banks can "freely" refuse your loan based on your race, color, religion, gender, national origin, or age. Not only that, dozens of other regulations which insure level playing fields would also be deep sixed. It's pretty hard to make a case for "liberty" on that basis. It's liberty for a select few. The rest of us are fucked.

So maybe you like Paul's position on drugs, or maybe you like Paul's position on the military, or maybe you like both. The problem with being a Ron Paul cheerleader is you're not just cheering for those two positions, you're cheering for his ideology whether you realize it or not, and Paul's ideology is the most caustic thing I've seen in politics since Lyndon LaRouche.

In case you're not familiar with it, Paul's version of Libertarianism teaches that personal liberty trumps every other consideration. Everything else just doesn't take a back seat. It's not even on the bus. At first, this may sound great to people who don't think about things much, at least until they realize things like actual civil liberties and taking care of the poor, elderly, disabled, unfortunate, and even middle class are simply tertiary considerations behind taking care of the rich, who seem to be quite capable of taking care of themselves. It's an ideology that is devoid of responsibility, compassion, and even decency. It's simply Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophical nonsense put into practice where greed comes before anything else.

"you're cheering for his ideology whether you realize it or not"


Do you support Obama and democrats in general? Probably yes. I do also.

Are you cheering for blowing up children with drones and raiding marijuana clinics? By your stated standards, you are.

But I think you are probably not a cheerleader for those thing. You probably have a nuanced view.

So why do you assume that everyone else in the world is stupid while you are capable of a nuanced view?

You have it exactly bassackwards. If someone cheers for Obama or any other Democrat, chances are they are cheering for their ideology. There's nothing wrong with cheering for liberal or progressive ideology regardless of what you think. In doing so, that doesn't mean you endorse every single thing they have ever done in their entire life. Suggesting otherwise is asinine at best, duplicitous at worst.

In the case of Ron Paul, it's his ideology that runs counter to pretty much anything that is morally correct and is only based on greed. If anyone wants to be a cheerleader for Ron Paul based on a very small minority of his positions, other people and I will remind everyone exactly how small minded that thinking is. If you don't like it, tough shit.

yes, that is the problem. Paul is a nutcase and regardless he might be right about a couple of things means nothing. In fact it probably hurts the cause more than it helps.

He's evil. There is nothing good or right about anything RP says, thinks or believes. Period.

since Ron Paul wanted us out. We should stay in Afghanistan since he wants out. We should arrest people who use medicinal marijuana since Paul opposes that.

There is nothing good or right about anything RP says, thinks or believes. Period.

so again should we reinvade Iraq since Paul wanted us out.

The truly funny part about half-wits like Ron Paul who promote Ayn Rand's objectivism, is that actual philosophers regard Ayn Rand as a hack. So these libertarian dipshits are really promoting an idea that had no sound basis in the first place and was nothing more than pseudo-intellectual banal bullshit.

In my estimation, this is a more honest assessment of Ron Paul's ideology. YMMV.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1187176

Young, White, Heterosexual Male. Everyone else is screwed.

when Ron Paul supporters say, he's racist and antisemitic but....... That should be the end of the conversation. However, in today's politics and just about every other facet of society, the bar has been lowered to the ground. Six feet under is more like it.

Remember Huntsman is gone. Is it Niggerhead Perry or I tell the NAACP to stop asking for foodstamps Gingrich, or maybe black people ask for handouts Santorum. That leaves Romney, who belongs to a religion that called blacks sub human until 1979. So really, tell me who the non racist in that primary is.

"so tell me the less racist person in that primary"

...so you're promoting Paul as a better racist than the others?

but why are we only calling him a racist. Why not Perry or Santorum? The fact is Paul is not someone I would ever vote for, for among other reasons his racist attitudes, but it is undeniable that he, and only he, is raising issues that deserve an airing. I would have preferred that Johnson be the one who got the chance to raise them but he was totally ignored by the media and the debates so we are left with Paul. The fact is he is right on drugs and he is right on the war and I am glad someone in that party is saying those things. Maybe the next time that party comes to power they will be less likely to pursue war due to the fact that a fifth of that party is anti war enough to vote for Paul.

well, thats sick in the head too.

you never know, for the record I don't but you didn't know that. Also for the record I don't think the war on drugs is the number one issue but I do think it ranks high. I would put it around 3 or 4.

the war on drugs effects far more than just cheeto-eating hippies.

and costs the American people billions in wasted tax dollars every year.

Many nonviolent drug offenders are felons who are stripped of their right to vote.

Other than that the war on drugs is wonderful.

In moral terms it may well be the biggest issue by far.

The thinking (and interest groups) behind the war on drugs are the same forces behind a lot of other problems. Requiring people to prioritize a menu of "issues" is a clever way of distracting us from root causes and feeds right into the ages-old tactic of divide and conquer.

Especially if you're black and male.

Thanks for the thread, dsc.

... people stopped reading halfway thru your title!

They see ONLY:

"Why I am glad Paul is running"

and completely IGNORE:

"even though I wouldn't vote for him"

I guess cognitive dissonance isn't just for Republicans anymore.

Someone sings praises for the worst Republican since David Duke, and somehow it's all OK because they say they wouldn't vote for them? Give me a fucking break.

Cognitive dissonance indeed.

Of which you just "sang" a verse.

A better argument can be made by those who rejoice in Paul's position on drugs, yet conveniently forget that he and his son are easily the worst Republicans in congress since Joe McCarthy.

Sounds like pretty much the epitome of cognitive dissonance to me, but you keep pretending otherwise if it helps you sleep at night.

Cheers!

That's just plain silly.

I sleep just fine, paranoia free.


Are you sleeping, at all?

It probably hurts the cause more than it helps. Would you make compliments about a particular position Hiltler held if there was one you agreed with? I think not.

forgive me if I missed him going after Mitt, but it seems to me he has given him a pass. On that and other things as well.