Why does Dr. Paul provoke so much anger from the left?

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,801
89
91
Considering that he holds many views that align with theirs (theoretically at least, I have a sneaking suspicion that liberals are no different than the "conservatards" they so despise), why do liberals hate him so much? Does the thought of Freedom and the thought of having citizens be able to function without a nanny state government upset them?
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
"The left"???, and not to mention the right... :D

Tell me again, how many states has he won so far?
And how many lefties were involved with his losses?
I seen the pie chart on CNN. Didn't notice any lefties slice going to them polls....
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,801
89
91
"The left"???, and not to mention the right... :D

Tell me again, how many states has he won so far?
And how many lefties were involved with his losses?
I seen the pie chart on CNN. Didn't notice any lefties slice going to them polls....

You're obviously not subscribed to Dr. Paul's email newsletter, he actually won Missouri (he got the most delegates) even though Santorum won the polls. At the convention I expect Dr. Paul to win the nomination because he'll have the most delegates, even though he may have not won the popular vote in a single state (although he probably would win all of them if not for voter fraud).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Because his views, whatever his 'intent', are intensely anti-democratic and would hugely take away the power of democracy, handing it to a plutocratic group of wealth and powerful private people unaccountable in elections and turn society into a third-world economy with only those few at the top and everyone else the poor dependant on them.

It's all hidden and masked in deluded rhetoric about 'liberty' - the kind of 'liberty' Tom DeLay praised in the Mariannas islands.

The left doesn't think Paul, unlike so many on the right, actually understands the effects of his policies, thinks his intent is evil - rather that he's a dangerous ideological innocent.

Think of Alan Greenspan engineering the economic crash with the best of intentions, crying about how he more than anyone was against things like TARP bailouts.

He admitted after decades his ideology had been wrong. Darn.

Paul is just clueless about how government works, what is good for society and its people. He'd burn to the ground what our society has built up and cannot rebuild.

Do you need to understand any more about this than that after a tornado disaster in his district not long ago, he praised the better policies in place a century ago in his district when a tornado struck - and lacking the modern FEMA and other resources, it was one of the worst disasters in American history with thousands killed - but privately handled?

Government is the people united so that they have power against powerful private interests - protecting the people's interests, and using society's resource not just for the few but for the people's priorities, whether in science, medicince, putting a man on the moon, protecting endangered species, regulating product safety, whatever.

Paul is the simpleton opposed to all of that, with the crazy libertarian ideology that everything will work great with only private forces - and you can sue if it doesn't.

Save234
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Because his views, whatever his 'intent', are intensely anti-democratic and would hugely take away the power of democracy, handing it to a plutocratic group of wealth and powerful private people unaccountable in elections and turn society into a third-world economy with only those few at the top and everyone else the poor dependant on them.
So you're saying the Democrats don't hand power to plutocrats?

With Dr. Paul, people would judged by their own merits, rather than how much money they had to lobby the government. Obama likes it to be just the opposite.

Dr. Paul is the only one who doesn't just hand power to plutocrats.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Considering that he holds many views that align with theirs (theoretically at least, I have a sneaking suspicion that liberals are no different than the "conservatards" they so despise), why do liberals hate him so much? Does the thought of Freedom and the thought of having citizens be able to function without a nanny state government upset them?

Most "liberals" I know do not care about Mr Paul one way or another. His support is somewhere around 10 to 15% in the GOP. He really is not that important outside of the GOP and maybe the Libertarian party.

The "liberals" I have talked to who have a positive opinion about him usually agree with his anti-war and anti-drug war positions. But they usually change their opinions when it is pointed out to them that Mr Paul wants to overturn the New Deal and most federal domestic poiicies put in place since FDR.

The "liberals" I have talked to who disagree with Mr Paul have serious problems with:

1. His agenda to base money supply on a shiny metal and the economic collapse that would follow if the US was crazy enough to make this change. Most of the people I have talk to about this do not see it as rational monetary policy.

2. His association with members of the John Birch Society, White Supremacist groups, and similar organizations.

3. His pro-"States Rights" position. Anyone old enough to have been conscious during the Civil Rights Era remembers that this was used as a justification for segregation and Jim Crow laws. Which helps explain the support he gets from White Supremacist groups.

4. His agenda to overturn the New Deal and most federal domestic policies put in place since FDR.

5. His supporters.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,824
2,613
136
I've never heard anyone-left or right-declare "anger" with Paul. Bemusement is the more apt term, along with sadness for those misdirected waifs following this pied piper.

OTOH if Paul ever actually took power and implemented some of his crackpot ideas there would be a huge amount of anger at the person who destroyed the USA. No chance of that ever happening though.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
I've never heard anyone-left or right-declare "anger" with Paul. Bemusement is the more apt term, along with sadness for those misdirected waifs following this pied piper.

OTOH if Paul ever actually took power and implemented some of his crackpot ideas there would be a huge amount of anger at the person who destroyed the USA. No chance of that ever happening though.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. This thread - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2234393 - sums it up pretty well. Ron Paul's supporters are almost always, in my experience, rather politically naive and often have crazy delusions about how the Man is keeping him down (as opposed to Paul himself simply being too goofy to appeal to people with common sense). His racist newsletters, and his lies about them, are also thoroughly unappealing to anyone other than overt bigots.
 
Last edited:

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
I think that Ron Paul's libertarian stance serves as an important counterweight to the Republicans' love of government-enforced morality and warfare, AND the Democrats' love of large social programs and complex economic regulations.

Having a clever, idealistic contrarian in Congress to force people to justify their methods only makes for better government, and helps keep issues from becoming overly simplistic us-or-them battles. In fact, we could use a few more like him.

But I wouldn't want him to have a majority. His ideas are too radical to work in a country of 300 million, most of which live in tightly-packed cities where their actions immediately and profoundly affect their neighbors.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
He makes people angry because he's genuine and exposes the other candidates. Without Ron Paul up there in debates you'd have a stage full of idiots high-fiving each other over lies and misinformation.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,476
136
Considering that he holds many views that align with theirs (theoretically at least, I have a sneaking suspicion that liberals are no different than the "conservatards" they so despise), why do liberals hate him so much? Does the thought of Freedom and the thought of having citizens be able to function without a nanny state government upset them?

Liberals don't like him because he has a bunch of horrible ideas. He has some ideas that liberals like, but they are outweighed by his other cartoonishly stupid ones.

It's hard to vote for someone who wants to legalize drugs when that comes with the destruction of the world economy.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,818
9,167
146
You're obviously not subscribed to Dr. Paul's email newsletter, he actually won Missouri (he got the most delegates) even though Santorum won the polls. At the convention I expect Dr. Paul to win the nomination because he'll have the most delegates, even though he may have not won the popular vote in a single state (although he probably would win all of them if not for voter fraud).

Please support those statements with actual evidence. Not a Ron Paul website but real proof.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
He makes people angry because he's genuine and exposes the other candidates. Without Ron Paul up there in debates you'd have a stage full of idiots high-fiving each other over lies and misinformation.

While I think you've accurately characterized the Repub presidential debates so far, it's not like Ron Paul adds a lot of overall sanity. It's not like what this country really needs is increased balkanization via States' Rights or an increase in the power of multinationals, which is what the funders of Libertopianism are really seeking.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
You're obviously not subscribed to Dr. Paul's email newsletter, he actually won Missouri (he got the most delegates) even though Santorum won the polls. At the convention I expect Dr. Paul to win the nomination because he'll have the most delegates, even though he may have not won the popular vote in a single state (although he probably would win all of them if not for voter fraud).

You want to bet?

This is the problem with Ron Paul. He lies so that people will continue to give him money and he can campaign instead of doing his real job.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
You're obviously not subscribed to Dr. Paul's email newsletter, he actually won Missouri (he got the most delegates) even though Santorum won the polls. At the convention I expect Dr. Paul to win the nomination because he'll have the most delegates, even though he may have not won the popular vote in a single state (although he probably would win all of them if not for voter fraud).

If you're serious, I would bet any amount of money that he will not win the nomination.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Small govt, individual freedom, free markets, decentralized federal govt, no nanny state? Gee, why would the left not like him?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,521
8,588
136
Does the thought of Freedom and the thought of having citizens be able to function without a nanny state government upset them?

Centralized power is the entire basis of the Left's existence. The rest are merely a flock of sheep who are brought along as a means to an end. Those among them who believe in liberty, liberalism, are taken advantage of. I might say the same of the Right...
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Anyone who would oppose tyranny is more suited for the government than those who do.

Unfortunately his "opposition to tyranny" includes measures that would destroy our economy and national security. I think he's as nutty as squirrel poop, and his supporters are several shades nuttier than Paul himself.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,521
8,588
136
Unfortunately his "opposition to tyranny" includes measures that would destroy our economy and national security. I think he's as nutty as squirrel poop, and his supporters are several shades nuttier than Paul himself.

Well there's your excuse, it's a common idea. That the world won't turn without being dictated to.

On this we stand opposed.
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,233
234
106
Because his views, whatever his 'intent', are intensely anti-democratic and would hugely take away the power of democracy, handing it to a plutocratic group of wealth and powerful private people unaccountable in elections and turn society into a third-world economy with only those few at the top and everyone else the poor dependant on them.

I dunno about you, but that sounds an awful lot like our existing present day reality.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Centralized power is the entire basis of the Left's existence. The rest are merely a flock of sheep who are brought along as a means to an end. Those among them who believe in liberty, liberalism, are taken advantage of. I might say the same of the Right...

Heh. And centralized power is the basis of the existence of multinational corporatism- they just want to eliminate the competition & constraints of egalitarian democracy, and they depend on the delusions created by their emotional propaganda among the electorate to accomplish that, to divide & conquer.