• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why did no one back Ron Paul?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
Should I link to the racist picture yet again? Love dumb asses who keep pushing that bullshit.

And OP this forum is hugely anti Paul because all of them toe the line for their parties. There are very few critical thinkers here. Jesus could run as a Republican or vice versa and they would vote Obama/Lol Romney.

He was certainly crippled because of the huge media blackout. When they did cover him it was to bring up the only thing they had on him which were the newsletters or the even more laughable earmark arguments.

Who knows if he would have won or not.

Apologize all you want, the white power crowd he hangs with is his weakest point, the fact that the media even talked about him at all shows how lost they are.

I rarely vote, but I WOULD vote against Ron Paul and campaign against him with my own time and effort.

I would not sit back and let some creepy old klanner troll get office. Democrats suck, Republicans suck, Ron Paul and these neo-liberal fast track to corporate serfdom nazi types are plain unamerian..
 
Last edited:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
you mean this old klanner?



there is no proof Ron Paul had ever been part of the klan and just because he is OK with their existence does not mean he backs their causes. Ron Paul isn't my pick because he spent to much time playing the game of the party system.
No, you refuse to see it because you are sucked into the wild eyed dreamy cult of Ron Paul. He could fart panzer tanks and you all would still swing from his nuts like schoolgirls.

We all have our heros I guess.

Is that the Dem who was a Klanner in the 60s but changed his view in light of the civil rights era? Really guys, the false equivocalness just shows the weakness of your positions, as someone who tries to be non partisan it doesent serve you all well.

If Ron Paul had the balls to admit he was misguided and manned up and changed his position people would have a LOT more respect for him. But hes dishonest, which people have to assume hes on the down low. So f' Ron Paul.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I'm not a Ron Paul cultist... We have similar views, but I don't back the man and I never really have. Actually you should understand due to the PMs we sent back and forth why I could never actually back him and it has to do with his stance on abortion. I respect it, I just completely and utterly disagree with it on the most philosophical of levels. I simply just don't agree with all the racist non-sense being attributed to him. It's pretty much become the easiest way to make someone marginalized, by calling them a racist. Seems exactly the kind of tool propagandists would use to shut up dissenting opinion/ideologies.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
I'm not a Ron Paul cultist... We have similar views, but I don't back the man and I never really have. Actually you should understand due to the PMs we sent back and forth why I could never actually back him and it has to do with his stance on abortion. I respect it, I just completely and utterly disagree with it on the most philosophical of levels. I simply just don't agree with all the racist non-sense being attributed to him. It's pretty much become the easiest way to make someone marginalized, by calling them a racist. Seems exactly the kind of tool propagandists would use to shut up dissenting opinion/ideologies.
Honestly, I hate the media also, but Ron Paul is a white supremisist, or at least WAS. But has he come out and admitted he was wrong? No. He denies all of it.

That's scummy. He is putting himself in a terrible position when he could use it to his advantage. That is IF he wants to swear off the past.

Obviously he has no interest.

Sorry Ron Paul, fascismo no pasaran.
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,924
1,088
126
Ron Paul's worst enemies were his own followers. I am not a fan of Paul, especially his desire to eliminate the 14th Amendment, return to the gold standard, and at least a few other of his economic policies. Those alone would likely keep me from voting for him. But his followers are the most insane, rabid, intellectually inferior group I've ever seen. And I'm even including the Tea Party in that statement, you know the group who can't spell 5 letter English words properly and want the government to keep out of their medicare.
 

GobBluth

Senior member
Sep 18, 2012
703
45
91
Don't get me wrong, having a different perspective was a good thing, bu his domestic and foreign policy were pure lunacy and simply wouldn't work in the modern world.

But then again when your competition is Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry it is easy to appear like a genius.

His foreign policy was to stop giving money to Arab nations and stop being the world police in order to focus on protecting America. He said that war was only acceptable if it protected the American public. Not to promote other governments or completely rebuild them into democracy like we tried to do in Iraq...

How is that lunacy?
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
His foreign policy was to stop giving money to Arab nations and stop being the world police in order to focus on protecting America. He said that war was only acceptable if it protected the American public. Not to promote other governments or completely rebuild them into democracy like we tried to do in Iraq...

How is that lunacy?
It doesn't kill innocent people around the world, thats why
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
Because America is stupid and doesnt want to wake up.

It doesn't kill innocent people around the world, thats why
[liberal/conservative] YOU CALL THOSE PEOPLE INNOCENT!!!! They disagree with us, therefore the only logical thing to do is kill them or integrate them. [/liberal/conservative]
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
His foreign policy was to stop giving money to Arab nations and stop being the world police in order to focus on protecting America. He said that war was only acceptable if it protected the American public. Not to promote other governments or completely rebuild them into democracy like we tried to do in Iraq...

How is that lunacy?
It's not lunacy, it's a quite common position for right wingers in US history.

For example Reps wanted to stop helping Europe and let Hitler do his thing, that way if we stay neutral we could hurry up and normalize trade relations between corporate America and the soon to be HUGE economy of Nazi Germany. (undermining the new deal and providing cheap labor) All in the name of "free trade" and "economic liberty" of course.

You have to go back pretty far to translate old right wingers language of isolationism. But the devil is in the details.
 
Last edited:

GobBluth

Senior member
Sep 18, 2012
703
45
91
Because America is stupid and doesnt want to wake up.



[liberal/conservative] YOU CALL THOSE PEOPLE INNOCENT!!!! They disagree with us, therefore the only logical thing to do is kill them or integrate them. [/liberal/conservative]

Americans aren't stupid, they just live in bondage. The Constitution means nothing anymore, the judicial system is a sham, and the government isn't the voice of its' people anymore.

If the politicians acted on the views and ideals of the very people the represent we wouldn't be in the sinkhole we are in now. Americans begged for redemption on 9/11, not an 11 year war across the entire middle east that did nothing but build a government that crashed the moment we left. Americans wanted big business to be held accountable, not bailed out to the cost of billions of tax dollars. Americans begged for a leader in the White House and got given a choice between an old fart and a lunatic woman or a spectacle with no experience and his incompetent running mate.

The problem isn't with the American public. The problem is with the government and its' ever growing power. This isn't a democracy, this is a dictatorship w/ a revolving presidency.
 

GobBluth

Senior member
Sep 18, 2012
703
45
91
It's not lunacy, it's a quite common position for right wingers in US history.

For example Reps wanted to stop helping Europe and let Hitler do his thing, that way if we stay neutral we could hurry up and normalize trade relations between corporate America and the soon to be HUGE economy of Nazi Germany. (undermining the new deal and providing cheap labor) All in the name of "free trade" and "economic liberty" of course.

You have to go back pretty far to translate old right wingers language of isolationism. But the devil is in the details.

That is pretty interesting... Eisenhower was a Rep. And he was Supreme Allied Commander. Good thing he didn't share his party's views.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
There may have been voter fraud, but the govt controls the MSM to make sure that good people like dr. Paul don't get elected.

The reason I suspect voter fraud is because GOP voter demographics from 08 don't match up in Romney's favor. Most people who voted for McCain/palin in 08 were poorer than the Obama supporters, yet romney is recorded as getting like 70% in TX and WV. Finally, gingrich could not have done as well as he was recorded to have in the southern States considering his rather socially liberal and very anti-paleo record... especially if older white people were the majority of GOP primary voters. Dr. Paul also got 2/3 of the Hispanic vote and he was recorded as getting only 15% of the total popular vote... that would mean that whites didn't vote for him much at all as proportion of GOP voters.

Other than voter fraud, the MSM has historically been nearly a master at mind control, but at least fewer and fewer people are believing what they said about 9/11 on the govt's behalf.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
It's not lunacy, it's a quite common position for right wingers in US history.

For example Reps wanted to stop helping Europe and let Hitler do his thing, that way if we stay neutral we could hurry up and normalize trade relations between corporate America and the soon to be HUGE economy of Nazi Germany. (undermining the new deal and providing cheap labor) All in the name of "free trade" and "economic liberty" of course.

You have to go back pretty far to translate old right wingers language of isolationism. But the devil is in the details.
LOL. FDR got the idea for the new deal from fascism, Mussolini to be precise. The nazi party loved FDR before he tried to attack them.

FDR was given the oppurtunity to assassinate hitler but he didn't because he wanted a full scale war. FDR and churchill refused refugees and hitler could not have done anything if FDR and Churchill had believed in Non-interventionism. FDR's idol Wilson was basically the primary root of the holocaust. Why do you believe this neoconservative bullshit?

Finally, if the Republicans during the new deal were so isolationist, then... why would they want to trade with nazi Germany?
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0


RON PAUL HATES N@@@@@@,HE IS A KLANSMAN, HATEFUL OLD WHITEMAN, ETC!!!

So sorry commie, Ron Paul has been fighting for minorities wrongfully imprisoned in our society, providing free health care to them, and he drew more minorities to the polls than the entire GOP.

Your just too god damn stupid to understand what he means by fighting for individual liberty and frowning upon any sort of group rights.

Next bullshit argument you want to be crushed on? Earmarks perhaps?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
That is pretty interesting... Eisenhower was a Rep. And he was Supreme Allied Commander. Good thing he didn't share his party's views.
Ike fought these extremist types tooth and nail. A Republican like Ike would have my vote in a heartbeat compared to any of these types nowadays on either side of the aisle.

But then listening to regular Republicans from back then is like listening to Dennis freaking Kucinich now.

That's how screwed the debate is nowadays.

The Republican party is literally the party of the John Birch Society cult. A far right ultra neo-liberal extremist (and nazi sympathizing) group even Reps wouldnt touch back then in public.

How far the mighty have fallen.
 
Last edited:

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
As we clearly saw Ron Paul was simply black balled. He won countless events that people poo pooed but would praise if any other candidate won. He likely won some primaries which were brazenly stolen from him. His ideas were SO crazy... and yet so good that other candidates blatantly stole from him.

Romney was the choice from the beginning. The rest just a charade to make people think their vote means anything.

Just look at the first primary. Surely after the press makes a huge deal of the first primary Romney gains support because he won, right? NO... he actually lost. But since they put in in the media that he won that's all that matters.

Go ask George Bush how that works.> He rode that same wave to the oval office. Same w\ WMD too. OMG Iraq has wmd!! bomb them, invade them... 2 weeks later "we're here to liberate the iraqi people" no mention of the non existent wmd. Nobody cares. Sheeeeeit... I bet if you poll 100 people you'll get 80% thinking Romney won the Iowa primary.

Just shows you how stupid the average american is. Pretend to care, but in reality don't give a shit.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
LOL. FDR got the idea for the new deal from fascism, Mussolini to be precise. The nazi party loved FDR before he tried to attack them.

FDR was given the oppurtunity to assassinate hitler but he didn't because he wanted a full scale war. FDR and churchill refused refugees and hitler could not have done anything if FDR and Churchill had believed in Non-interventionism. FDR's idol Wilson was basically the primary root of the holocaust. Why do you believe this neoconservative bullshit?

Finally, if the Republicans during the new deal were so isolationist, then... why would they want to trade with nazi Germany?


And...here we have a perfect example of John Bircher cult propaganda madness. With liberal doses of pseudo history -from a fascist sympathizer.

Whowouldathunkit?

You thinking righties need to get these folks under control. And soon. The USA needs both parties to govern a civil society. ASAP.

Take a step back from the rhetoric of being a "conservative" for a minute and think as a AMERICAN.

This divisive stuff is BS, you are being played against your own countrymen.
 
Last edited:

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
His foreign policy was to stop giving money to Arab nations and stop being the world police in order to focus on protecting America. He said that war was only acceptable if it protected the American public. Not to promote other governments or completely rebuild them into democracy like we tried to do in Iraq...

How is that lunacy?
Getting out of the ME is a great idea, my issue with it is that it goes to the point of being isolationist.
Being isolationist in an increasing global world will only hurt America in the long run.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,386
3,516
126
RP's greatest strength is that he seems Honest and Genuine. His greatest weakness is what he is Honest and Genuine about.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Isolationism is silly, non-interventionist is a different thing that we should encourage.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Getting out of the ME is a great idea, my issue with it is that it goes to the point of being isolationist.
Being isolationist in an increasing global world will only hurt America in the long run.
He isn't an isolationist, it seems you want the US to kill more people
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
His foreign policy was to stop giving money to Arab nations and stop being the world police in order to focus on protecting America. He said that war was only acceptable if it protected the American public. Not to promote other governments or completely rebuild them into democracy like we tried to do in Iraq...

How is that lunacy?
Because Ron Paul wants to basically stick his head in the sand when it come to some of these countries.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY