Darth Wong wrote:
Wow. I look forward to pictures of Ron Paul rallies in your world. The sea of dark-skinned faces must be quite a sight, what with all the white elitists who hate him and the minorities who love him. Strangely, I can't find any pictures like this on the Internet, but I'm sure your mind is full of them.
At a GOP rally!? Hardly.
I'm serious. There is no comparable hate-Paul over the newsletters from non-whites as compared to whites. Ron Paul attracts minority
supporters to GOP primaries. One wouldn't necessarily be surprised at large mostly-white crowds at a GOP rally. That's the whole point of the hate-Paul use of racism - to scare whites because they aren't racist and fear the label, or because they are racist and Paul's ratting on the system.
That is a fascinating claim. Please, by all means, show us all these examples of minority support for Ron Paul.
You'd think minority rights bloggers would be rallying to shut down Ron Paul, GOP or no... but they're not
. While WashingtonsBlog makes the mistake of saying Ron Paul voted for MLK Day (Paul voted against two attempts because he was opposed to making another paid Federal holiday), Paul did vote yes to an ammendment to make the holiday every third Monday of January instead of every 15th of January, which makes the holiday much less disruptive to a work week in which the 15th could land in the middle of the week instead of always immediately following a weekend.
You'd think minority rights groups would be rallying to shut down Ron Paul, GOP or no... but while NAACP Austin President
Nelson Linder may not support Ron Paul politically, he personally vouches for Ron Paul's non-racism.
Black Libertarian Walter Williams
also believes Ron Paul isn't racist based on knowing the guy form over 20 years.
In Nevada, Ron Paul spoke to the nonpartisan Hispanics
in Politics. He was well-received. No-one took him to task over the newsletters.
The main Latino concern?
But Paul’s message to Latino voters isn’t going down completely smoothly. He upset a a Latino woman with his opposition to the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship to some illegal residents. But he registered his objections with sympathy, explaining that he simply opposes spending federal money to help one minority group over another.
“The DREAM Act was the only place where he was absolutely wrong,” said Fernando Romero, the president of the group that hosted the morning forum. Romero is a Democrat who said he worked as a political consultant for McCain last cycle.
Rap isn't known for pulling punches; is Snoop Dogg
worried about newsletters? Nope; he's all for ending the war on drugs and few if any of his fans accross race appear outraged in the least.
There seems to be a lot of African-American
support on Youtube.
There are a lot of minority youtube posters
, who support Ron Paul as enthusiastically and for the same reasons as white Ron Paul supporters.
No indications from openly homosexual politician Rick Sincere
that Ron Paul is a homophobe either.
So really, Paul haters are using classic double entendre disinfo. One message to smears Paul across two white constituencies based on their take on racism. Except, of course, the libertarian white constituency that isn't fooled on moment by the ploy and is probably a little annoyed with it.
I suppose the hate-Paul bandwagon would accept bonus points scammed from minority individuals in doubt, but they're not the main target. Not many takers in that third category anyway.
Again, there is a notable absence of hate-Paul from persons 'of race'.
I'd at least expect overwhelming silence from minorities conflicted with the different Ron Paul positions. But no, as demonstrated above, Ron Paul has minority supporters and what's more, they're grassroots supporters who have made the decision on their own to support Ron Paul, and not following any leader.
Every Ron Paul supporter is an informed supporter. They've weighed the pros and cons, and decided Ron Paul stands closer for them than any other candidate.
The harshest Paul critic who is also a minority is ]Ta-Nehisi Coates[/url], a senior editor for The Atlantic. Yet, even he says
I want to reiterate--again--that I make no claims on the heart of Ron Paul. How he truly feels about black people is best left to Paul and his conscience. His actual record, however, is wholly subject to the wiles of google.
He goes further
As I've said before, we all must make our calculus in supporting a candidate or even claiming he is "good" for the debate. But it must be an honest calculus.
If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.
Since Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate taking antiwar, antiracism, pro civil rights and liberties, pro-constitutionalism and pro fiscal responsibility to the forefront, then Ron Paul is the only person to support if one agrees those issues are paramount priorities over more war and less fiscal restraint.
The status-quo is all for those things and taking them to the next level. The status quo so far has not been the steller triumph of humanitarianism, but only turned humanitarianism into yet another excuse to be inhumane.
Ron Paul opposes far greater ills than any petty hypocrisy he's ever been accused of. Ron Paul appears soft on sticking it to racist homophobes with their own money; some people don't see a problem except that the method used wasn't cool. Ron Paul disavowed having anything to do with it, but accepts moral responsibility for the tactic being used.
Empty slogans. Nothing more.
He has openly stated that he would prefer to eliminate laws that prohibit racist policies at the state level. He has openly stated that he would allow state-level governments to infringe upon individual freedoms. His "fiscal responsibility" line is a joke; there is nothing "responsible" about treating public assets like a yard sale. And everyone on both sides of every major political dispute likes to wrap himself in the constitution. It grows tiresome; the constitution is just a legal document. In a nation of wannabe-lawyers, the ultimate legal document also represents the ultimate moral authority, but that's part of the derangement of America.
Well, a nation's laws will reflect the morality of its people. People are not necessarily in agreement with attacks upon
the U.S. Constitution. The cynicism of the failure of successive American government to live up to it, especially in terms of foreign policy, cannot be confused with disliking the Constitution, or for that matter the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights.
Ron Paul didn't like the Civil Rights Act because he considered it more divisive than useful in eliminating racial discrimination, but he never had any problems with the intent. There is nothing saying states can't advocate in favour of civil rights. State Rights is attractive because it allows the people to play one level against the other for their benefit, not place all their eggs in the overarching power of one level of government, in this case, the Federal government.
Ron Paul has raised important issues that need to be addressed, and if its just sloganeering, more needs be done:
1. The foreign wars. All races are affected on the basis of wealth; the promise of the military to pay for higher education, for example, or just a paying job that might eventually lead to something in the private sector upon retirement from the military. More non-whites than whites tend to be poor relative to their numbers in the population, and disproportionately serve in the military. I'd wager, also in the more dangerous and less glamorous and prestigious military professions. Then there is the enormous cost of the military-industrial complex locked into expending blood and treasure in conflict rather than investing it in far less costly defensive initiatives.
2. The internal war on drugs results in a higher percentage of poorer minorities imprisoned alongside poor whites. All come out of those prisons with a record affecting employment and education opportunities, further setting back any dependents they may have. Add to that, the reputation of prisons for making, rather than reforming, criminals.
3. Most candidates wrap themselves up in the flag, not the Constitution. Ron Paul has been fairly consistent in basing his positions from the Constitution and principles of civil liberty. His entire career has been one of opposing expediency over the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, among other provisions.
There are many problems with the way the government and its agencies place expediency over the constitution. The core is that the rights of the weak and the minority are ignored for benefit of the strongest player able to buy Federal power, reinforced by an under informed, apathetic majority.
4. Civil liberties and civil rights are hardly separate issues. Without liberty to speech and debate, the quality of civil rights cannot be challenged. There are no Presidential candidates except Ron Paul saying that the Patriot Act and the NDAA are a problem. The constitution is ignored except to trumpet its every breach. Under such circumstances, States with operative versions of the Bill of Rights
make State's rights look very attractive indeed as a check to federal abuses. Empowering them with the added economic clout of Federal lands isn't exactly terrifying. They are pretty much held in reserve for the highest corporate bidders
5. Fiscal responsibility isn't even a slogan. Its absent from the debate unless something radical like ending the Fed comes up - only to be dismissed as stupid while the status quo - print more money
is somehow more rational
. Yet, the Fed
is at the core of lot of problems America today faces.
I like the way Ron Paul supporters say that the racist newsletters were not his honest opinion, but merely a "paleoconservative strategy", and then they go on to say that he's the "only honest politician in Washington", without a trace of irony.
It's amazing; they believe that Ron Paul never lies ... except when he's caught saying something horrible. When that happens, then he's obviously lying.
Ron Paul has never lied where it counts, his voting record and official positions and speeches as a Congressman. The only notable reversal of position was his stand against the death penalty. Ron Paul believes it feels disproportionally penalizes non-whites and poor whites, while allowing rich white guys to evade the penalty, and DNA evidence demonstrates there have been too many wrongful convictions to permit it to continue.
Barrack O-Blam-AAaa has expanded the drone wars and openly denies the obvious, that drone assassinations also murder innocent people
beyond the initial collateral slaughter
O-Blam!-Aaa also signed away the 5th Amemdment rights
of Americans when he said he wouldn't and pretty much finished posse comitatus. Some people look at these two events as rather alarming apart, let alone put together into a larger picture. State rights
have never looked as good since the Northern states bucked Federal fugitive slave laws, in resisting now
People know the other guys will lie. Yet, they don't make a whole lot of promises to break regarding ending foreign and domestic wars, restoring Constititutional rule and civil liberties, or to exercise fiscal responsibilty. In fact, they'll argue anything but those issues so that the status quo may continue unchallenged, breaking ice like the Titanic.
So, Ron Paul comes out ahead even if one suspects he's lying through his teeth and his policies seem unusual. Its just that bad, and the greater evil lies in dodging that reality and not starting the push back right now with the people and tools remaining at hand. As far as any Ron Paul supporter is concerned, the longer Americans wait, the fewer such resources will remain against the momentum of apathy and willful ignorance towards autocratic encroachment.