Putting an END to the 'Ron Paul is racist' claims right here and now. Who will challenge me?

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


JFK eh? I am not going to say that he was a good or bad president because I wasn't even a twinkle in my father's eye at the time, but considering his foreign policy of assassination. I wouldn't make him out to be an angel. Bay of Pigs and repeated attempts on Castro's life. Let's not forget the revolving door of women in the white house. I don't mind that he was sleeping with women. I am sure Jackie knew about it and she knew the marriage was more for politics. The thing that gets me is that his revolving door of women could have compromised him or even worse one of those women could have been assassins. Let's not forget about his supposed marriage before Jackie, with no apparent divorce papers. You can dig up dirt of any of the Presidents. Nobody is perfect.

Judging by what I see and hear of Ron Paul, I think he could be what America needs right now. I don't see other candidate on the Republican side I would support and Obama is ineffective. Even though I wouldn't vote for him just because of he is the best of the rest, but I agree with a lot of his views. I truly believe that he wants this country to be better for the people, not the banks and corporations.

You sitting here complaining about Ron Paul being a racist when there is more evidence and actions that he is not doesn't matter. Give a us a better candidate.

Its like you telling me that my favorite hangout sucks. Well, my favorite hangout is close to where I live politically, I enjoy the people associated with that hangout and it doesn't cost an arm and leg to belong to hangout. You're basically saying that I should get a new hangout without offering another candidate....errr.. hangout.

Could Paul be another Obama? Yes sure he could be. Could he be another corporate shill? He could be that too. If this country is going down, I would rather exercise my right to vote and pick the candidate that "I" would like to see in office and not pick the candidate that MSM told me too or "get on the bandwagon who will probably win".

In essence, this whole thread is meaningless.

Some guy: I have proof that Ron Paul isn't a racist!
Some other guy: I have proof that he is!
Another guy: That evidence is not characteristic of Ron Paul according his actions or speeches.
This guy: Well, I am so much smarter than you all, you should all not vote for Ron Paul.
That guy: Who should I vote for? The rest of the Republican candidates have been accused of being dirty politicians, racists, homophobes and war-mongers.
Random Person: Not Ron Paul!
Man in the Corner: Why?
Woman over there: Because he is racist!!!! Newsletters with his name at the top of the paper!!!
Other Woman: Did he write them? Can you prove it?
Some dude: I'm not sure, it has his name at the top! But I can't prove it!
Old guy: In an interview 15 years ago, he said it was someone else and he accepts moral responsibility and he apologizes.
Young guy: But now he says he doesn't remember that interview. There is no way over almost 30 years of political interviews, debates, and talking to many random people through his political career and medical career, there is no way he could possibly forget that interview.
Middle-aged guy: But he walked off from the interview!!!
Middle-aged woman: But they asked him the same damn question over and over and over in which he answered many times over and they disregarded his answer.
Young girl: Yeah, even though he is a Congressman, doctor and presidential candidate, he should ample time to repeat his answer over and over. He should be thankful that a news network even acknowledged his existence enough to try to smear him, rather than do what a news network should do and that's give a fair, unbias reports on what is going on in our country.

TheImmaculateD1: I don't understand your "check mate". Did you really change anyone's opinions? Racism these days isn't something you prove or disprove in a few instances. If I called you racist right now, how would you disprove it!?!? Unless he is riding around in a four wheeler in a KKK uniform lynching non-whites and burning crosses in proclamation that whites are the superior race, you're not proving much. There is no evidence that he has mistreated or discriminated against any non-whites, the worst is supposed wrote/said some off-color things, which I am sure he is the only one in this country to ever do that. (sarcasm)

Elections are a gamble, everyone is betting on different horses. Maybe you should run for President. Obviously he can run a campaign without media and corporate support, so you should be able to as well.

reply to post by FredT
Why did Ron Paul leave the interview? Because he had answered the question and wasn't in the mood to turned into a broken record.

"I didn't write them, I didn't read them at the time, and I disavowed them."

Take it or leave it, he's saying. Though I wish his campaign had been better prepared to deal with this (not new) issue and the relentless questions that arise from it.

Gloria Borger went on to thank the Congressman, saying that she appreciated his answer, appreciated his answering the questions, and that he understands it's their job to ask them - Even though it's been asked and answered back in 2008.

That's why. The interview was over according to Ron Paul, it's his choice whether or not he's going to answer a question once, or fifty times. I don't know anyone that would sit there and answer the same question fifty times, that's just silliness.

Originally posted by Destinyone
Oh. My. Goodness. That's really funny you know.....You can't even define yourself...

You know what I think is funny? That people feel they have to use a D or R label to define themselves. That they have to pick a side... They have to be FOR or AGAINST... I think that's pretty funny.

I've never belonged to a political party and I am politically defined just fine. Not by a letter, but by my positions on issues.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Destinyone
Oh. My. Goodness. That's really funny you know.....You can't even define yourself...

You know what I think is funny? That people feel they have to use a D or R label to define themselves. That they have to pick a side... They have to be FOR or AGAINST... I think that's pretty funny.

I've never belonged to a political party and I am politically defined just fine.

Not by a letter, but by my positions on issues.

I think you may have misunderstood that portion of my post. I should have been clearer. What I was saying was...he is so sure of himself in telling us who we should not vote for, when he can't even answer who he would vote for.

He's in the race for the argument only. He likes to beat the dead horse. He puts his views so far above any of the candidates, that I find it incredulous he thinks so highly of himself. That's all.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Destinyone
Oh. My. Goodness. That's really funny you know.....You can't even define yourself...

You know what I think is funny? That people feel they have to use a D or R label to define themselves. That they have to pick a side... They have to be FOR or AGAINST... I think that's pretty funny.

Not really "funny", just the reality about "politics" in the States. Giant Douche or Big Turd? Big decision

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by FredT

 

And your remark to the OTHER part of the post? My response to your ORIGINAL accusation of me?

Not really sure what exactly I'm supposed to say about this

Did I read the entire contents of the almost 600+ posts in the thread? Nope

Are my comments in line with your opening post? Yep.

So isn't it funny how he is racist if he takes a picture with a racist but when he takes a picture with black people at his medical practice, it doesn't mean he isn't?

Never said anything that would contradict this

So which is it? are taking pictures with others indicative of that person's racial equality?

Nope one way or the other

Are you all officially denouncing the picture he took with the supposed-known-racist?

Political types have to take pictures and glad hand all sorts of people that are often not vetted prior to the picture. Just a handshake shot with someone does not prove intent one way or another.

However if that person has a pattern of posing with say David Duke over and over again or the guy was say dressed up in sheets, OR he knew the guy prior and his politics, its a question IMHO. Im not saying that the case here rather answering your question.

Originally posted by Destinyone
What I was saying was...he is so sure of himself in telling us who we should not vote for,

Did he tell you who you shouldn't vote for??? I missed that.

when he can't even answer who he would vote for.

I must have also missed where he couldn't say who he would vote for... Where did he say that? He was talking about PARTIES, not candidates...

This is so typical of discussions on ATS today. People start arguments about things that no one ever said!

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by FredT

 

Why did Ron Paul leave the interview? Because he had answered the question and wasn't in the mood to turned into a broken record.

"I didn't write them, I didn't read them at the time, and I disavowed them."

Take it or leave it, he's saying. Though I wish his campaign had been better prepared to deal with this (not new) issue and the relentless questions that arise from it.]

He should have been better prepared yes.

is asking it 50 times crazy? Yes

Would I walk away after say 4-5 times? Yes but then I'm not running for president.

Is it his right to say "Take it or Leave it" and leave the interview? 100% Yes, but that alone raises 50 more questions about what exactly went on.

Politics aside I think it was a huge mistake and we are seeing it play out here on ATS as well as everywhere else. As I said before if the interviewer wants to waste time with the same crap (esp. if I as a candidate think its baseless) then let here. Far better and has more upside than walking out.

Edit to add: He has taken an previously dealt with issue and put it from a simmer to a full boil and now they need to do damage control. Like in war momentum plays a huge issue in politics and this is momentum killer IMHO

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I know its not my post you are replying to but ...yes....

Hes said multiple times not to vote for paul

hes also said multiple times not to vote for anyone with an R behind their name....while not offering up any alternatives or reasons other then his own false sense of self importance and feigned knowledge of the political system........

All you have to do is look at his post history to answer your questions...

Anyway,

Merry Christmas everyone

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


We agree. So I won't be starting an argument with you, nor accepting one from you .

reply to post by eLPresidente


Racist stuff is written in first-person, under his name, in his newsletter, some with his personal details included.

I don't care how you pinch it, what excuses you make, that stuff is his responsibility.

Originally posted by Rothbard

Originally posted by Henley
We all must face the fact Dr. Paul will not win the nomination. He will run on a 3rd party ticket and it will split the vote.

That is not necessarily true.
James Jaeger at the Daily Bell wrote:

Ron Paul does not even need the GOP to win the general election. If he were to walk away for a third party, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% – enough of the vote to win the Presidency in a three-man race.

No. That is bad math. You cannot divide 100% into 3 categories and then add up percentages as if they were all out of 100%
IF we assume that 40% of Americans are Republican and 40% are Democrat, leaving 20% Independent that we get:

12% of 40% =4.8%
15% of 20%= 3%
11% of 40%= 4.4%

Giving a grand total of 12.2% of voting public. I'm sure the actual divide of Rep/ Dem/ Ind. is different- but not to the point of giving RP 38% of the popular vote.

Originally posted by TwilightSporkle
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Racist stuff is written in first-person, under his name, in his newsletter, some with his personal details included.

I don't care how you pinch it, what excuses you make, that stuff is his responsibility.

hes repeatedly taken responsibility for the fact that he was negligent in what was being put out in his name....

He expressed it again today in an interview.......

I'm actually going to give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt here and withhold judgment about whether or not he knew about it. He hasn't said who wrote them, but he doesn't have to. He said he didn't write them, and he's the one running for president, so I'll take his word for it... However, the things he said in the CNN interview are more disturbing to me.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm actually going to give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt here and withhold judgment about whether or not he knew about it. He hasn't said who wrote them, but he doesn't have to. He said he didn't write them, and he's the one running for president, so I'll take his word for it... However, the things he said in the CNN interview are more disturbing to me.

Fair assessment

Would much rather people disagree with him on his politics

2nd line

Originally posted by TwilightSporkle
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Racist stuff is written in first-person, under his name, in his newsletter, some with his personal details included.

I don't care how you pinch it, what excuses you make, that stuff is his responsibility.

Hmmm....

He took responsibility for it.

denounce:to condemn or censure openly or publicly.

Flogging a dead horse (alternatively beating a dead horse in some parts of the Anglophone world) is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile; or that to continue in any endeavour (physical, mental, etc.) is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided.

LINK


hidden agenda: a hidden motive or intention behind an overt action, policy, etc.

An undisclosed plan, especially one with an ulterior motive.


Where does the media,Ron Pauls detractors Lay on this issue?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


And so he - and his fluffers - need to stop whining about it being brought up. He screwed up. And it's not "oh heck, I forgot my pen, do you have one" screw up, it's more of "Oh crap I left the water running while I was in Aruba for two weeks" kind of screw up. Rather than actually manning up and shouldering the burden of his own words - or his own hugely negligent mismanagement of his own newsletter - he snivels, weasels out, and stomps off. This on top of changing his story on these things at least three times

First he defends it.
Then he doesn't know what it is or who wrote it and has no idea about anything at all
Now it's a mistake, apparently, now shut the hell up and go away

Let me put it this way. if this were a story about anyone but Ron Paul. if it were, hell I dunno, Al Franken or Bernie Sanders. If Al and Bernie sent out several newsletters denigrating white people and talking about inevitable race war and how to kill a person and dispose of the weapon, under their own names, and then claimed they had no idea what was in those newsletters, had no idea who wrote them, didn't know any of the editor's names, (all despite having defended these same statements years before) would you believe them? I don't think you would. I know I wouldn't.

People don't forget this stuff. And forgiveness needs some sort of positive gesture. Okay Mr. Paul, you say you made a mistake. Now what are you going to do about it? Whine and lie? That's been his MO on this subject for years now. It's not enough to just say "I disavow those statements," and then be the sole member of Congress voting against a gesture to celebrate the 1964 Civil rights Act, claiming that the act "reduced liberty." Most people would be forced to believe that one of those two statements is a lie, don't you think?

If Ron Paul wants this buried, he'd going to actually need to put his (considerable) money where his (prodigious) mouth is. But even that might not be enough; despite strong, strong evidence that Robert Byrd had become a changed man, he was still unable to shed or be totally forgiven for his past with the Klan. Paul hasn't even given so much as a sop of an apology, much less decades of pro-equality legislation.

So I think this one is going to stick to him. And if you want to stick by your guns - and Paul's story - then fine. do you really want such an incompetent, mealy-mouthed manager running this nation? Beyond the "better than the other guy" argument, that is.

Geez, let's go out on a limb and think ahead as if Ron Paul was racist, or even that it doesn't matter. Does he appear to be making any policy decisions based on racism? As far as I can tell no.

So in the grand scheme of things how is it exactly that this remote 2 decade old racism thing even matters other than being a instrument of propaganda?

Even if he was a racist 20 years ago, which is doubtful, people are much different now than they were at that time. Should we base our support or disdain for Ron Paul entirely on this issue that happened 20 years ago when it's very legitimacy is in question. It just seems ridiculous to argue about this and make it a big deal, as far as I can see it is being made a big deal on purpose to discredit the man.

Everyone is loosing their focus. Why don't we just go ahead and make a super committee out of the 6 people that posted most in this thread and argue about it some more.

It's not like the very word "racist" isn't subjective in and of itself. So if I have ever said anything negative about blacks does that qualify me as a racist for life or what? If a black guy stabs me and I raise # about it does that make me a racist? Is there no in between there?

reply to post by TwilightSporkle


I understand your concerns...

However Yes i do stand beside him and his explination, hes taken responsibility for it....

Incompetent?

Not hardly, the man actually READS bills , the man actually KNOWS sections and terminology of papers that come across his desk...

He has proven time and again he is the MOST competent man weve seen run for president in an age....

reply to post by RSF77


Yes being a racist is a much more important issue than what is going on in this country, where do you live? this is Amerika.....