A young black man, a coworker from a previous job posted “Don’t Think and Vote, Think and vote for Ron Paul” on FB. Then a young black woman (whom I don’t know) responded with a like and “Paul 2012”.
How common is this?
Maybe this middle-aged white guy is missing something, but Paul is against civil rights and has a history of associating with racists. Why would this intelligent educated young black man support him?
Because they like his policies agree with some of his views.
I assumed that. But I don’t understand how they can ignore the other things.
You’re clueless.
Rather than simply disparaging me, why don’t you explain what I’m missing?
He’s not against civil rights. What you are probably referring to is his view that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Two different things.
By ‘associated with racists’, I assume you mean the racist toned newsletters. I’m not going to go into the details of it here, but if you chose you could certainly find more information. Honestly, to me those newsletters read like over-the-top satire.
The reason that a black man may support Ron Paul may be the Paul is probably the least racist of all the R candidates, and by far more colorblind.
I wonder if some of your shock comes not from a black man supporting Paul, but from the fact that he’s not supporting Obama, as 90-something-% of his peers do.
Please argue the issue without making personal comments like this one.
You wonder incorrectly.
Much of Paul’s support has actually been from the young.
I disagree with him on many issues, but it’s easy to see his appeal. Watch him at debates: of all the GOP candidates (including when it was a bigger field with Bachmann and Perry and others) he’s by far the most likely to actually answer the question and stick to the topic instead of just attacking Obama and his rivals for GOP nomination in some order. He also is on record as one of the first to say “all of these subprime mortgages are going to lead to a total disaster” and vociferously opposed the bailouts. While he himself is anti-abortion, it is not (to the best of my knowledge) a part of his platform- as a libertarian he’s not concerned with legislating morality- plus I think most young people, whether they’re pro or anti abortion or pro or anti gay rights or contraception, are first and foremost concerned with “Will we have a &@#$@*ing job that will pay our bills when we graduate college?”, and unlike Gingrich and Santorum especially he speaks to that: most of his topics are about fixing the economy.
I have to admit I’ve grown some respect for Paul myself watching the debates and reading some of his articles. (Yes, I’m aware of the racist newsletter scandal, but that was 20+ years ago and the extent of his involvement is unproven; he denies it, which certainly doesn’t wash it away, but again, the current economy is quite understandably [I would say quite rightly] a bigger issue to most than something that may have happened 20 years ago in which nothing was actually hurt save some feelings.) He has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination, but ironically if he did he’s the one who’d have the most chance of swinging moderate Democrats away from Obama.
See, that’s the kind of answer I was looking for. Thank you Sampiro. I’m not sure that I agree with you but I can understand someone seeing it that way.
I’ll admit that I haven’t been watching the debates. The answers (or should I say non-answers) given by most of them will just irritate me, and I see no reason to torture myself like that, since I won’t be voting in the Republican primary anyway.
One thing RP mentions a lot in the debates is his stance against the War on Drugs. He will almost always note the disproportionate effect that “war” has had on blacks in the US.
That’s a very good point. I do agree with him on that.
I do have a big problem with his stance on abortion. Also, he’s a global warming denialist.
We’re talking about someone who’s anti women’s rights and has a background that is, in my mind, more than just questionable in regards to race. It just puzzles me when I see intelligent people seemingly blinded to those things.
Ron Paul is against murdering innocent foreigners with airstrikes at funerals and rescuers, against kidnapping and torturing innocent people as “terrorists” without trial, oversight or hope for justice, and against the War on Drugs. No matter what you think of the man, you cannot legitimately argue that he doesn’t have his good points.
Instead of asking why someone would support Ron Paul, you should be asking yourself why he’s the only one with the decency to make a stand on these issues.
wrong.
There is no question about his “associating with racists” concerning his newsletters. The newsletters exist, and he endorsed them. He’s not associating with racists; he is one.
Yet another instance of Poe’s Law in action.
Someone who thinks that state governments can jail people for engaging in homosexual sex is not a believer in civil rights. Nor is someone who thinks restaurants have the right to refuse to serve black people.
That’s certainly my understanding.
He is very definitely against gay marriage and spoke out against Lawrence v. Texas (which essentially de-criminalized gay sex) and supported Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, all reason enough in and of themselves for why I would never support him (though one of my closest friends who is about as gay as you get supports him, go figure). It was his son Rand Paul who made the dumbass comments about supporting restaurants rights to racially discriminate, though. (If his stance on gay rights wasn’t enough reason for me not to support him the fact he named his son for Ayn Rand would be.)
However, gay rights aren’t as important to a lot of people as the economy is, the notion being that without a sound economy the rest doesn’t make a lot of difference. I disagree with that assessment, but I can understand the basis of the sentiment.
Yessiree. If a state decides minorities are entitled to civil rights, Ron Paul won’t stand in its way. Unless it’s the right to an abortion.
" In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level."
See, it’s that consistency that Paul supporters like, black or white. :dubious:
True, we might ask what it really means to have a few outliers in any ethnic group who support a candidate who opposes the interests of that group. Or what percentage of black Americans really support Ron Paul.
According to a Public Policy Polling survey in December, Paul would get 10% of the black vote in a race against Obama, only slightly less black support than would go to Romney. It could be what Paul has said about opposing the “war against drugs”, or his 2008 promise to pardon anyone convicted of a non-violent drug crime.
Paul is an ardent libertarian. Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it expanded the federal government’s power excessively. The Civil Rights Act forced businesses, among other entities, to integrate racial minorities, and Paul believes that businesses should not be forced to desegregate. Instead, this power should be left to the business owner - if the boss wants to allow minorities in his restaurant, fine. If the boss doesn’t - well … it’s his prerogative, not the fed’s.
Paul also believed that the racial hiring quotas of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were unconstitutional.
So if Paul had presided over the '64 Civil Rights Act, he would have vetoed it. Paul would have argued that the states should individually decide if they want to force racial integration themselves. Now, in some states, like Alabama, I can’t imagine racial integration working out too well if the issue were thrown to the state legislature … and that’s why I don’t support Paul: I believe that the federal government should step in sometimes and lead the US along a better path.
Again, Paul isn’t specifically anti-civil rights, but his ardent libertarian views do sometimes put him at odds with civil rights.