Ron Paul's candidacy

Jasongreat

Come on thomas,is that true or a common missconception? The US is populated by people who thought their chances better in America than in thier home country. For the most part in early history most those who came here, came because the country they were leaving was oppressive, mostly religiously, in america your abilities were all that counted. I enjoyed one of Franklins letters to a frenchman, he pretty much said you can find mechanics, masons, blacksmiths, carpenters, pretty much any trade, in america, the one thing you wouldnt find is an athiest.

For the most part immigrants came here because of religious oppression in their home country, second to that scientific oppression. See Joseph Priestly. Today I would agree that religion takes second place to those just wanting a better life, but to sy they couldnt make it in their home countries is dissengenious. Did Einstein come because he couldnt make it in his home country?

ThomasT

I don't see anything in your statement that counters mine. I think that, other than sheer adventurers and financed profiteers, the bulk of the people who migrated to the US did so because they weren't, and foresaw no prospects of being, successful in their home countries. They were the poor, the tired, the hungry, the oppressed, etc. To a certain extent that I don't know enough about to quantify. So I could be a bit off wrt that notion. But I don't think it would be correct to call it a myth, as I think it's, essentially, an accurate characterization of a significant portion of the people who have migrated to the US, and an accurate characterization of a significant portion of portion of the people who are, in current times, migrating to the US.

ThomasT

We'd better get back on Ron Paul, or somebody will close the thread. Paul seems to be doing a little better than he did 4 years ago, which I suppose he would consider a victory in terms of his avowed aim of running for president in order to get a certain message into the mainstream.

Jasongreat

I would have to agree, but I dont think Paul is running for president, that it is his message he cares about. There are more people now than in a long time actually discussing topics they would have thought taboo years ago. What does it mean to be conservative? What is the difference between an isolationist and a non interventionist? Is a military establishment neccesary?

It is a discussion we havent seen in years, Goldwater was the last that I know of(i wish I could say remember but it was a bit before my time). It seems to me at about that time modern conservatives went against conservatism, we have had a few republican presidents going down the not-so-conservative path, a couple completely down the wrong path, Paul is bringing that message back. Though I do feel that message still has a long long way to go.

Thanks for reminding me of the topic, I do get carried away sometimes. :)

ThomasT

The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.

The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.

turbo

Paul's past is a bit troublesome, for average voters. He has gone well beyond Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty" standard, in my opinion. At some point, we have to have to filter out the nuts and the extremists, or we just can't have fair and free elections.

ThomasT

I don't know. I mean "nuts and extremists" would seem to characterize the GOP candidates. Except maybe wrt Romney. But then he is a Mormon. An extremely rich Mormon.

Paul's past is a bit more than troublesome for me. I find myself coming around to Evo's view that the guy is just a nut case.

The system does seem to filter out extremists. In Paul's case it seems that that's a good thing. But I'm not sure that that's always the case.

turbo

I don't think that the GOP primary system is doing a good job filtering out extremists. If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties. I don't see that basic benchmark in the GOP, which is pretty sad.

AlephZero

An op-ed piece in the UK Financial Times made the comment that the Democrat party has effectively redefined itself from being the "industrial working class party" to "the billionaires, academics, minorities, and single women party". The consequence of that shift was to drive the white working class to the Republicans, which is now split into the "Rotary Club Wing" of its traditional upper-middle-class membership base, and the new "Burger King Wing".

It draws the analogy with Humphrey and Wallace for the Democrats in 1968, where the Wallace faction moved to Republican after 72, and forecasts that similarly many "Romney Republicans" will be Democrats in 2016.

The FT piece didn't make any comparison with the UK, but I think there is a similarity, except that in the UK's multi-partys system, the white working class who felt abandoned by the Labour Party's shift to "New Labour" have tended to join new minority right wing parties (e.g. the UK Independence Party and the British National Party) rather than join up with the tranditional Conservatives.

Galteeth

Could you be a bit more specific?

Dotini

I'm interested in recent reports that say Paul's organization is taking over the GOP at the grassroots delegate level, installing many people in ongoing positions of influence and authority in the party infrastructure. They say these delegates will play a powerful role not only at the convention, but well beyond. Maybe Paul is crazy - crazy like a fox!

I think I'm starting to enjoy this,
Steve

Gokul43201

Can you show us this article, so we can read it too?

turbo

Here is a JBS/Paul story with embedded links.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew..._b_890037.html

Gokul43201

While it points out the affinity with the JBS, that article doesn't say anything about Paul being sympathetic to advocacy of a confederacy, does it? But that seems to be one of Thomas' concerns about Paul.

turbo

Here you go:

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane...federate-flag/

mheslep

I don't know if Paul has somewhere else said the things attributed to him in that newsone article, but he does not make statements that merit the term 'neo confederate' in the video. Newsone purports that he does:
which is misleading, bordering on a lie.

ThomasT

It's just one concern. Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Paul's political career is an advocate of an independent coalition of Southern states. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Paul's professed preference for state and local government preeminence as opposed to federal government.

I would suppose that if Paul were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the racist stuff that was published in his past newsletters.

But I have to wonder, just how extreme is this guy? And my current opinion is that he's a bit too extreme to be entrusted with running the (still) most powerful country in today's world.

By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana. And, no, I don't smoke, or advocate smoking, the stuff.