# Ron Paul's candidacy

by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by 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.
 PF Gold P: 7,368 Here is a JBS/Paul story with embedded links. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew..._b_890037.html
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by turbo Here is a JBS/Paul story with embedded links. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew..._b_890037.html
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.
PF Gold
P: 7,368
 Quote by 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.
Here you go:

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane...federate-flag/
PF Gold
P: 2,989
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:
 Quote by newsone why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right.
which is misleading, bordering on a lie.
P: 1,414
 Quote by 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.
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.

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.
P: 320
 Quote by 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.

Many "fringe" groups have contributed to Paul's campaign. Paul has criticized Lincoln, and has suggested a better way to deal with the conflict would have been to incrementally buy and set free slaves (keep in mind the original purpose of the war was not to free slaves but to preserve the union, and slavery remained legal in four union states even during the war.). This is far from suggesting the Confederacy was in the right. Regardless, these are historical speculations that don't have much to do with current politics.

As far as the JBS goes, I really don't get the point. Sure the JBS has some wacky members. Historically they were wrapped up in anti-communist hysteria (most unfortunately being paranoid of the civil right movement for being infiltrated by communists). But even then they rejected racism officially. Their current positions are pretty much small "l" libertarian. It's natural they would support Paul.
P: 1,414
 Quote by Galteeth Many "fringe" groups have contributed to Paul's campaign. Paul has criticized Lincoln, and has suggested a better way to deal with the conflict would have been to incrementally buy and set free slaves (keep in mind the original purpose of the war was not to free slaves but to preserve the union, and slavery remained legal in four union states even during the war.). This is far from suggesting the Confederacy was in the right. Regardless, these are historical speculations that don't have much to do with current politics. As far as the JBS goes, I really don't get the point. Sure the JBS has some wacky members. Historically they were wrapped up in anti-communist hysteria (most unfortunately being paranoid of the civil right movement for being infiltrated by communists). But even then they rejected racism officially. Their current positions are pretty much small "l" libertarian. It's natural they would support Paul.
Good points, imo. Still, I remain skeptical wrt Paul.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by 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.
Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of vague (unnamed person, unspecified connections) assertions and no citation to a source that will clarify.

Here, try this for size: Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Obama's philosophy wishes that God would condemn the United States. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Obama's demonstrated preference of apologizing for the actions of the US.

I would suppose that if Obama were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the violent stuff that was practiced in the past by one of his friends.

 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.
Unless you specify (with evidence, where needed), what speific positions you find extreme, it's difficult for a reader to know what you're talking about: one person's 'extreme' is another person's 'reasonable'.

For instance...
 By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana.
I imagine a large majority[1] of people in the party Paul is running in likely consider that an extreme position, even though it seems wholly reasonable to you.

1. See, for instance, p17 in this PDF --> http://people-press.org/files/2011/03/711.pdf
P: 1,414
 Quote by Gokul43201 Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of vague (unnamed person, unspecified connections) assertions and no citation to a source that will clarify.
Yes, that is a problem. I just recall reading that a certain (apparently significant) contributor to Paul's effort was pro confederacy. But since I don't remember the source, then it's not a significant or arguable point, and, unless it can be documented, then it should be disregarded.

Here's an interchange between Paul and a newsperson on the civil war:

Paul's responses here seem pretty reasonable to me.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by 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.
For someone who is so vehemently abhorrent of the two-party system and the influence of corporate money on politics, I find it a little surprising you don't show even the slightest signs of support or sympathy for the one candidate that seems to be most immune to both of these ills.

I disagree with Paul on many of his positions. But his steadfastness to principle and his disinterest in lobbyists are a sight for sore eyes.

In 2010, the average payout to members of Congress from lobbyists was around $50,000, with top recipients (usually senior members of Congress, mostly Dems) bagging over a million bucks each of lobbying money. Paul is credited with receiving a whopping$352.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation....cutive-branch/
PF Gold
P: 7,368
 Quote by Gokul43201 For someone who is so vehemently abhorrent of the two-party system and the influence of corporate money on politics, I find it a little surprising you don't show even the slightest signs of support or sympathy for the one candidate that seems to be most immune to both of these ills.
My lack of support for Paul is based on his off-the-wall views on many issues. Even if he had a chance at getting elected, there is no way that a sitting president can reform the electoral system, roll back Citizens United, and eliminate lobbying. Congress has to do those things to make them happen, but they won't because the system is rigged toward incumbents.
PF Gold
P: 2,989
 Quote by Gokul43201 ... But his steadfastness to principle and his disinterest in lobbyists are a sight for sore eyes.
Well said and strongly agree. I wonder if those characteristics have become available only to libertarian candidates. I see similar characteristics in his son the Senator from Kentucky.
 PF Gold P: 2,989 @Turbo - a popular president with strong principles on limited government could well demolish much of the existing system. Beholden to no government interest, least of all government employees, such a leader could, and would, threaten that which the existing interests hold most dear: spending. Such a leader would not blink at a threat of shutting down the government from Congress, and could simply veto spending bills until he gets what he wants.
 PF Gold P: 7,368 That's a long-shot though. The do-nothing Congress will shut the government down all by itself - no President required.
P: 320
 Quote by turbo That's a long-shot though. The do-nothing Congress will shut the government down all by itself - no President required.
Sounds great....
 P: 320 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...=1#post3792005 I am requesting for any one with statistics expertise to please look at this thread.
 PF Gold P: 475 Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.

 Related Discussions Science & Math Textbooks 12 Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 5 General Discussion 10 Current Events 197 Current Events 1