The point was about the designation “joke candidate”. Now that’s refuted and we can go back to discuss the OP.
Which is, that you have a special interest group with strong ties to another country deciding for you who’s eligible and who’s not for President of US. And they even go hard core on it calling one of the most decent guys Congress has seen anti-semite. Care to comment on that?
We’re fully aware of this - it’s the whole problem. A whole lot of people are trying their hardest to discredit him as a candidate, continually censoring him out of the media to make sure he won’t win the nomination. A better man than you wouldn’t be gloating about it.
It’s not refuted. The man is a joke candidate. He doesn’t have the chance to win the nomination. Secondly, he’s hardly one of the “most decent guys Congress has ever seen”. He’s a crank whose beliefs are really far outside the American mainstream, who published a racist newsletter, and who, if he’s not a racist or anti-semite himself, and I think there’s evidence to support that, at least has ties with racists and anti-semites and has publicly come out against civil rights laws.
And the RJC , as far as I know, doesn’t have strong ties to any other country, and isn’t “deciding for me who’s eligible and who’s not for President of US”. It’s deciding who they want to invite to a function they’re holding. And there’s a special kind of irony in a Ron Paul supporter condemning a private group for who they choose to invite or not to invite.
Or alternately, you could say that everyone in the country has the right and duty to decide who is and isn’t eligible to be President.
If I thought that’s what was happening, I wouldn’t be. But it’s not that. The reason that Paul won’t win the nomination isn’t that his views are being censored or that powerful forces are trying to shut him up. The reason that Paul won’t win the nomination is because his beliefs are in the minority among the Republican party, and the country as a whole. He could get all the media attention in the world, and it wouldn’t change anything. The population as a whole doesn’t want to return to the gold standard. The population as a whole doesn’t want to limit the federal government to just defense. The population as a whole doesn’t want it to be legal not to serve blacks in restaurants. The population as a whole doesn’t want the US to become isolationist. Ron Paul wants it, but most people don’t.
Sure, but that’s not relevant to this situation. Does everyone have the right and duty to decide who the Republican nominee should be?
These are all exaggerations of his positions cooked up as a scaremongering devices in the same way as say Palin’s “death panel” is being done for Obama’s healthcare plan.
And just like a rational person rejects “death panel” interpretation of healthcare plan so should such a person reject the idea that Paul wants “it to be legal not to serve blacks in restaurants”.
It may be that you don’t grasp the concept of reducing the concept of Government prescribing every aspect of life but on this subject I’d just say that if you have to “force” people to respect other people that’s not much of a democratic society because people find ways to work around those laws and prescriptions that “force” people to do what they, in their state of mind if left to their preferences, wouldn’t do otherwise. Mutual respect is never forced but it is a process of arriving at it.
I don’t know that I would characterize Paul as having a “joke candidacy”, but he has a maximum level of support that he’s not able to rise above. Kind of like Romney, although he can’t raise the amount of money that Romney can. Still, if Paul is “joke candidate” then so is Santorum.
The difference is that the Obama health care plan didn’t set up death panels but the Civil Rights Act, which Paul wants to repeal, made it illegal to not serve people in restaurants because they were black, which had been going on before the law were passed.
And I don’t care if people respect other people or not. I do think people should be allowed to go about their business without being discriminated against because of their race, though, and if the government has to pass laws to that effect, then so be it.
While Ron Paul is on record as saying he personally disapproves of racial discrimination in the private sector, he absolutely is in favor of making it legal to do so. He has clearly stated that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act. In that sense, he is taking a libertarian stand, although he doesn’t always do so.
Who isn’t a joke candidate, aside from Romney? I mean, not only did the current front-runner alienate himself from the entire Republican party and have his entire campaign staff quit on him earlier this year, but he said, and I quote, “Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood.”
Hi is far from the only crank whose views are outside the American mainstream in the Republican race. And he knows more about the world than Cain ever did. Perhaps they are scared of him because he can state his extremist views without making a joke out of himself?
So for you, the guy who supports torture is a serious candidate? The guy who is for repeal of Roe v. Wade?
Does this issue of torture and the stand he took make McCain a “joke candidate” of 2008?
Romney, to me, has the most material for being designated a “joke candidate” for the sheer hipocrisy of his stands on anything that change depending on who the audience is. That’s what joke candidate definition is.
The fact that he is “popular” is another thing entirely.
Well shit, if that’s the definition of a joke candidate then we’d better start taking Ron Paul seriously!
Does this mean you are okay with torture and you are also okay with overturning Roe vs. Wade?
Simple yes or no will do. Snarky comments dept. is down the hall…
“not going to get the nomination” does not equal “joke candidate.”
Trump was a joke candidate. Bachman and Cain were jokes. Paul has no chance of winning, but he has a decent core following and his campaign is completely serious.
Okay, we have to back up here. For starters, I never said I supported Romney, I just said he was not a joke candidate. If you would like to talk about my personal political views, I am not okay with torture and I am pro-life. But I do not wish to get side-tracked with a discussion of my political views.
My point was that he has valid credentials, he espouses views widely supported by a large portion of voters, he has a sizable following, and he does not make comments to the tune of “Let’s go to war with China,” “Any ad which quotes me is false,” or “Immunizations cause autism.” I absolutely do not think he is a joke candidate.
If we use your definition of joke candidate, which is hypocrisy and flip-flopping viewpoints, then he is a joke candidate, but there is no possible way you could consider Ron Paul a joke candidate using your set of standards.
The “forum” seems to exist so that the RJC can be told things it wants to hear. For all of Ron Paul’s many faults, he’s not going to do that, so his showing up would seem to be a waste of everyone’s time.
If you believe enough in government to spend my tax dollars overseas to support an ally you should believe in enough government to spend my tax dollars here teaching our children and keeping us safe and healthy
As evidenced by how seldom one makes friends and influences people by endorsing Ron Paul.