Paul blasted politicians who blame immigrants for causing the country’s economic problems. He compared the situation to Nazi Germany’s targeting of Jews in the 1930s.So, the Neo Nazis seem to have picked the wrong guy.
“When things go badly, individuals look for scapegoats,” Paul said. “Hispanics, the immigrants who have come in, are being used as scapegoats.”
Paul said he doesn’t support illegal immigration and said people who break the law should be punished. But he said he opposes any effort to round people up and ship them away.
“If an individual is found to be breaking the law, serious consideration should be given for them to return. But I would think 99 percent of people who come here come because they believe in the American dream,” Paul said to applause.
Paul decried a punitive border policy, which said offended his belief in individual liberty.
“The one thing I have resisted and condemned: I do not believe that barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems,” he said.
"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."posted by titus-g at 2:05 AM on February 2 [33 favorites]
Indeed, one of the quicker ways to delegitimize the critique of the War on Drugs, in the eyes of black people, would be making Ron Paul the prominent face of the movement. That black people even need to be swayed doesn't seem to occur to Paul's supporters who, admittedly, are unoriginal in viewing African-Americans as the slick paint-job on a pre-fab argument. But the fact is that black people are far from united in their feelings about the criminal justice system in general, and drug crimes in particular.It's from the last in Coates' series of blogposts on Ron Paul's idea that the issues which led to the Civil War could've been solved by buying slaves and freeing them (links to the rest of the series at the bottom of the post).
As an aside, I think there's an essay to be written about why any accusation of a racial offense is so often reduced to 'Are you a racist?' It would be as if my wife said, 'You forgot to check Samori's homework' and I responded, 'I'm not a bad father.'posted by shakespeherian at 5:21 AM on February 2 [26 favorites]
--Ta-Nehisi Coates
Aside from us releasing his [Jamie Kelso's] information such as his social security number, address, resume and private discussions, we also heard some folks went on a joyride with Kelso's credit card and made some lulzy purchases, including sex toy purchases and making donations to the Anti Defamation League and many others. Oops.Oops.
Racism, like all forms of bigotry, is what it claims to oppose--victimology. The bigot is never to blame. Always is he besieged--by gays and their radical agenda, by women and their miniskirts, by fleet-footed blacks. It is an ideology of "not my fault." It is not Ron Paul's fault that people with an NAACP view of the world would twist his words. It is not Ron Paul's fault that his newsletter trafficked in racism. It is not Ron Paul's fault that he allowed people to author that racism in his name. It is anonymous political aids and writers, who now cowardly refuse to own their words. There's always someone else to blame--as long as it isn't Ron Paul, if only because it never was Ron Paul.Sometimes you can be wrong about a person. Don't double down, admit that you misjudged him and move on. Everybody makes mistakes.
So when this kind of thing came out in his newsletter years ago, that wasn't good enough? Oh, but we can't see his REAL inner thoughts, just the ones he sends in his name to his followers. Maybe is true, private thinking is totally different from what he sent out in his newsletters.So I suppose that when people send donations to Amnesty International under dick Cheney's name, that means he's not really a bad guy? Or whatever?
There is a difference, especially when you take into account that racism is a spectrum - every single white person who's ever used a racial slur isn't a card-carrying member of Stormfront. David Duke was an honest-to-goodness KKK Grand Whatever. Newt Gingrich has shown himself to be an unstable sociopath in virtually every other area of his life and career. Ron Paul is a life-long devotee of sociopathy institutionalized as politics - libertarianism.Or what about Robert Byrd? This is a guy was a official in the Klan as well. Lots of democrats defended him after that, and why not?
he actually defended the statements in the letters.Link doesn't work. I Googleed your quote and came up with this post from Andrew Sullivan who writes:
This issue comes up again and again. Paul has taken two stands on it: the first was to take formal responsibility, even though he claims he didn't know about the contents; the second was to insist he didn't write them or know who did. Some of his early responses cited by TNC do seem defensive and cranky. But the notion that he has been actively seeking victimology in all this or that he is defined by these isues seems unfair to me. I think the papers (and comments almost two decades ago) should definitely be considered, in context, when judging his candidacy, and not because the neocons are determined to smear anyone challenging their catastrophic record. But compared with Rick Perry's open bigotry in his ads, or Bachmann's desire to "cure" gays, or the rhetoric around "illegals" in this campaign, these ugly newsletters are very, very old news. To infer from them that Paul is a big racist is a huge subjective leap I leave to others more clairvoyant than myself.Lots of partisan democrats were heaping praise on Sullivan when he was defending Obama the other day. Of course I think Andrew Sullivan is a complete idiot, and he's also defended actual racists like Charles Murray, so he's hardly a good guide to who is and isn't "not racist"
But ask yourself: you've now heard this guy countless times; he's been in three presidential campaigns; he's not exactly known for self-editing. And nothing like this has ever crossed his lips in public. You have to make a call on character. Compared with the rest on offer, compared with the money-grubbing lobbyist, Gingrich, or the say-anything Romney, or that hate-anyone Bachmann, I've made my call.
Is there anything here, or is this just a big pile of innuendo?Yeah, anyone can claim to be "Anonymous". There have been duds before. "Anonymous" claimed to have hacked Bank of America, a while ago but their data dump turned out just to be a scrape of their website.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Perhaps not surprisingly, reddit's /r/ronpaul has already started trying to justify this:It's not "Justification" to question whether a data dump from "Anonymous" is in any way legitimate. Anyone call themselves "Anonymous." Let's see if this gets picked up by major news organizations or whatever, they exist for a reason.
That's how things go 'round here. Go dig up the old thread on the 'lynched' census worker. Word 'lynched' is used, buttons pushed, off on the various talking points. Didn't matter that the details were thin. The 2 minute hate had to happen and didn't matter that the gruel was thin - there was scenery to chew.The dude was found hanged from a tree. It was a reasonable assumption to make.
Either he knew the content of those newsletters and didn't think it was that bad (as he originally claimed), and therefore if not racist then he is a craven opportunist who will use racist language to promote himself to racists (even worse!)Yes, that is the correct statement to make. Was that so hard? Since you don't know which is the case, you can't say that one or the other is true. At least not if you want to be honest.
OR, he did not know the content of those newsletters and is thus a complete and total moron for letting people publish whatever they like under his masthead with no editorial control.
Ah, the Byrd Corrolary, favorite bullshit argument of people trying to prove that all Democrats are either racists or protect racists. Again, if you don't take anything else that Byrd ever said or did past the 1960s, it's a double standard. But that ignores the fact that he not only publicly repudiated his prior positions multiple times, but unlike Paul,I didn't say there Byrd was a racist, but rather that democrats were willing to forgive past racism, in the case of a Demcorat.
"Dr. Paul has stated repeatedly that he did not write these words, did not approve them, has disavowed them, and apologized for not exercising better oversight of things being published under his name over 20 years ago," Gary Howard, a spokesman for Mr. Paul's campaign, said Monday.Here's one link
Maybe you should read up on the arguments for creating the electoral college, then again you are Paul fanatic so delusion runs deep. Plus it has worked quite well with a couple of exwmptions. Since you are such a constitutional scholar, I am sure you know why the founding fathers and others argued for the electoral college.Yeah the George W. Bush presidency was just a minor inconvenience, really. It's a standard Democratic position to be against it, by the way. Hillary Clinton supported a constitutional amendment to get rid of it, and a lot of states have been passing laws that will get rid of it by giving their the national popular vote winner once a majority of states pass similar laws.
1995 to 1996Was he lying then or is he lying now?
In a 1995 C-Span interview, Paul talks up his newsletter and espouses some familiarity with its contents. He says it deals a lot "with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending our government seems to continue to do."
Paul, having been out of office for a decade, ran for Congress in 1996 and the content of the newsletters were raised by his opponent as a campaign issue. Paul's campaign doesn't deny authorship of the newsletters, but says the Democratic rival is taking the message out of context.
In a Dallas Morning News interview, Paul said the comment about black men in the District of Columbia arose from his study of a report by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.
I am being honest that Ron Paul is either racist, a depraved and craven opportunist, or a moron.Yeah, that's fine. But "He's knowingly published these or is a moron" is not the same statement as "he knowingly published these". It's entirely possible he is in fact a moron. I think the whole "Austrian economics" stuff is pretty moronic, for example.
Forgive past racism? No, not really! Racism is unacceptable. When an individual stops being racist, that's a good thing. Forgiveness for racism is not really involved there.Well, why not with Ron Paul then? That's what's unclear. Obviously there's a difference between 1990 and 1950. But on the other hand, Byrd was an official in the KKK.
I've been really interested in tracking this blog meme that's cropping up over the last month or so about attacking Democrats for their party's historical racism. It's all over the place - a salty quote or two from LBJ, a complete non-mention of the entire last five decades, and the whole party is handily tarred as hypocritical because once it was the stronghold of Jim Crow and Strom Thurmond.I havn't seen it. I don't have a problem with Robert Byrd, I liked the guy. The question is why I'm supposed to hate Ron Paul in order to be a "good liberal" or whatever.
delmoi - no one has answered my follow-up point: Why is being a moron more acceptable in a presidential candidate?I would rather vote for a moron who I anti-war and anti-torture then a brilliant warmonger. If George Bush had been as enthusiastic about peace as he was about war, would the those 8 years have been that bad? And he was a stupid warmonger. Imagine if he'd been as smart as Dick Cheney himself?
State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.posted by Miko at 2:04 PM on February 2 [4 favorites]
Paul's reaction was to backpedal, rationalize, and then eventually disavow. Not too fine a difference between the two, I think.*shrug*. Obviously that kind of thing is subjective. It's like during the 2008 campaign when Hillary accused Obama of not repudiating Louis Farrakhan hard enough during one of the debates.
and he's yet to back down from other fucked-up positions.What do his other positions have to do with him being a racist?
Give what up? Byrd was an official in the KKK, he was a "keagle" and recruited 150 members. He repudiated his past, and Paul's repudiated the newsletters.But on the other hand, Byrd was an official in the KKK.Dude, just give it up.
No one's telling you to hate him. We're asking why you feel the need to defend his odious policies and ignore how they affect his other policies in context.Yeah, I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out that false statements are false. How I feel about him doesn't change factual reality, but a lot of people seem to have trouble with that.
So an anti-war moron fucking over the rights of racial minorities, women, gays, and the poor is A-OK?Do you understand the difference between a general statement and a specific one? When did I ever say I was a Ron Paul supporter? All I said was that I would rather he be the nominee then Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. If you had to chose between one of those three being the next president, who would it be? Newt "Black people have no work ethic" Gingrich or Mitt "I don't care about the very poor" Romney? (actually, I think the country would be better of with Romney as present then Paul, since Paul's economic policies are not very sensible -- I just think the election would be a lot more entertaining if Paul were the nominee)
So Obama's people are covering up the fact that he supports gay marriage. Paul's people are covering up the fact that he anticipates the coming race war.Obama opposes Gay marriage (although he supported it before becoming a presidential candidate)
SAMEY
Is this CIA Anonymous? Was this a Cass Sunstein "Nudge"? You know, Cass Sunstein of the OIRA. I mean, you already know what the OIRA is and who Cass Sunstein is right?Lolwhat?
I think that backpedaling and watering down his stance is consistent with what Obama preaches. His election platform promised to build bridges between the parties, and he's always claimed to be a political pragmatist. He says that he wants cooperation and results, not ideology and conflict.Oh, come on. It's pure political expediency.
Take them all to task, as far as I'm concerned, the color of their flag doesn't make the immune to criticism by any stretch. But this is a thread about the nazi thing, so it's not outrageously weird to find conversations about that here.Sure, but the "Nazi thing" seems totally specious, an internet equivalent of James O'Keefe style stunts. The newsletter thing is tangential to that though.
Because there can be quite a difference in the actions of someone motivated by expediency or indifference to indulge racists and the actions of someone who holds these values deeply. Let's be honest - the former has been a part of the American political scene since time began. There's always been opportunists. Real, dedicated KKK/Nazi style "let's start a new Holocaust" style racists, though... is that what we really believe Ron Paul is?Eh. I'd argue that the 'expediency' racists are actually worse then the 'true' racists. Or at least just as bad.
I don't see this as really being against drug laws when he knows that there are only even a handful of states waiting to legalize pot, and that others could just as well come down harder.Okay, I've seen this argument recently and it is by far the most ill-conceived arguments I've heard in a while. there is nothing preventing states from coming down harder on drugs if they want too right now. Drugs or alcohol. In Texas the police have raided bars and arrested everyone with a blood alchohol level over 0.8 for public intox. In some states you can't buy alcohol on Sunday, whatever. And Nationally, alcohol is legal, but states can ban it if they choose.
To be honest, I bet Obama doesn't believe in marriage inequality, but due to the divisive nature of the issue, he holds off. Hopefully, when his second term occurs ... more liberal policies will be enacted. He has nothing to lose at that point as he will retire from formal politics after his second term.,*rolls eyes* Come on dude, after healthcare passed what did Obama do with his political capital? Authorize offshore drilling and focus on the national debt (and not unemployment). What makes you think he even gives a crap about 'liberal policies'? People should judge the guy based on what he does and says, not their fantasies. He was a liberal when he was representing a liberal district in IL, he supported gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization. Now his government has completely flip-flopped and reversed their policies on medical marijuana for seemingly no reason at all.
You know the countries cut off from the US in a Paul presidency include those who depend on the US for foreign aid?How many countries depend on aid from the US alone? Are there any besides Israel? A large portion of our foreign aid is actually military aid. The top four countries to receive Aid from the US in 2010 were Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and Iraq. Three of them countries that we either bombed or are currently bombing and would probably be entirely delighted to see us entirely out of their lives.
You can't be so niave to believe politicians do not state positions they don't believe in for votes? A politicians job is to get (re)elected, thus must garnish an electoral win.Are you paying attention? The whole thread is about why you should apply that standard to Ron Paul, assuming he wrote/authorized those newsletters (something like 9 out of the 300 or so his company published)
…
And wow! What a great fucking response to solving the question! I suppose we all just shouldnt vote unless a candidate matches 100% of our own individual belief system! -- handbanana
The idea that supporting gay marriage would damage his support among socially conservative black voters is one that was rammed into my head by Obama supporters on this very site. You know what I used to say to it: "Obama losing black support is about as likely as frozen aerial pigs in hell, regardless of their position or his on gay marriage."Hahaha, seriously?
Obama has done a ton of great stuff for gay people under the table (like this just a few days ago), as well as some higher profile stuff as mentioned. It's also shitty that he won't defend gay people in public in a lot of ways. Yeah, he's the most powerful man in the US and tells people that he believes that they shouldn't be married due to his religious beliefs. That's shitty.Especially since he gave a speech talking about why it's important for religious people not to use their religion as the basis for policy, yet this specific issue is the only one where he does the opposite of what he says his views on the separation of church and state are. and throw in the fact that he used to be for Gay marriage makes it even more obviously hypocritical.
But this is not about Obama. This is about Ron Paul.The problem is that if you say "Ron Paul is bad because of X", then if X applies to Obama that brings Obama into the discussion.
If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.'' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.posted by empath at 11:03 AM on February 6 [5 favorites]
« Older Chaim Levin appeared in a video as part of the It ... | The Washington State Senate ha... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by thecjm at 12:24 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]