“He didn’t write the newsletters, so that argument is invalid. Someone put out articles and wrongly attached his name to them. That doesn’t make the content his.”
So, I guess it was only one or two newsletters that he didn’t read, so had **no idea **what was being published. He cashed the checks from the subscriptions. His name on the masthead. But he’s not responsible? What would Gault say to that?:dubious:
So what’s a democracy? Switzerland?
Only in the sense that candidates effectively have to pass a “wealth-primary” of fundraising ability to get on the ballot. Ron Paul ain’t gonna fix that.
We were in deflation throughout the Great Depression and started having inflation when we recovered from it. Inflation can be a very bad thing, but is more often a good sign than bad, and usually preferable to deflation. See here.
Well, you could trust a man that has been consistent and truthful his entire career, one that has numerous NAACP leaders vouching for him, and one that has spoken out numerous times against racism, or you can believe that unlike 99.9999% of politicians, Ron Paul didn’t have ghost writers working for him.
Look up Nelson Linder.
Either nothing at all or a whole, whole lot.
Or…that the media purposely doesn’t give fair coverage to certain candidates, or that there were THOUSANDS of reported cases of mass voter fraud in nearly every state (and much more unreported), or that the GOP changed their rules to not allow a specific candidate to be up for nomination, etc.
Pointless asking for some cite, then, I suppose, what with the media conspiracy, and all.
Cite?
The answer to the thread-title question would still appear to be No.
Oh, RP got fair coverage, all right.
No, there weren’t. In fact, there never are. Check this out.
Well, that is strictly a matter internal to the party, which is a private organization and not a branch of the government. Is it really relevant to the question of whether our system is democratic or not?
Granted, I suspect rEVOLutionary is not exactly your typical mainstream Pub, not even compared to adaher or OMG.
Well, I’m not going to post 100 links here, but I’ll give you a reputable source that covered this extensively: Ben Swann.
Maine
Iowa
Florida
Massachusetts
Louisana
California
New Hampshire
etc.
These are just a few examples of the states where there was specifically numerous cases of voter fraud against Ron Paul. There was even more against Romney. Paul supporters were also kicked out of many conventions, their votes were illegally overturned, rules were changed (like RNC Rule 27), etc. Everything was done to keep people from even knowing who Ron Paul was.
“working for him”
So, no responsibility. How many newsletters was it, again?
IOW, “conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed”. Rush Limbaugh preached the basic catechism the night after the 2012 election: “Conservatism, in my humble opinion, did not lose last night. It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus.” This is what the right-wing base believes.
Romney was a bad candidate (Krauthammer called him a liberal post-election), while Ryan still gets a pass much like Palin did in 2008. Recall that conservatives absolutely loved Sarah Palin as late as 2010–until her constant stream of nonsense and the resulting radioactivity in the mainstream became too much for conservatives to ignore. Ryan is smart to keep his head low for now, but IMO if/when his budget ideas are publicly rejected, the base will just as quickly label him a failure.
The right today commonly writes off the failed presidency of George W. Bush as “He wasn’t really conservative”. Hannity urges Todd Akin to drop out of the 2012 Senate race despite (1) his A+ rating on conservative issues in the 112th Congress, and (2) his expression of a political position–that rape is not a justification for abortion–which is commonly held among the GOP base (to conservatives, it’s neither the position nor it’s obvious conclusions/rationalizations that are a problem, it’s just the inelegant expression Akin used).
Conservatives want to rationalize away failure as anything but the rejection of their message by a majority the American public. I hope they continue believing that; it’s the best way to accelerate their political irrelevance.
BTW, if your arguemnt here boils down to 'he was incompetent at supervising his staff, didn’t know what they were doing", how does that translate into 'he’d be an excellent President"?
Keeping people from knowing about Ron Paul is the best strategy for maximizing votes for Ron Paul.
I never said he had no responsibility. He should have read them before letting them be published. But he’s not a racist.
Seriously, how long a period of time, how many newsletters, had racist content? Just how long was Mr. Paul ignorant of the content going out under his name? How long was his 'ghostwriter’s" tenure at the newsletter?
Well, these are all rhetorical questions, so i’m guessing you have nothing further to add?
-
Voter fraud in the primaries? That’s a new one.
-
By “voter fraud” you do mean what is usually meant by the term, right? That is to say, persons casting votes who are not legally eligible to vote, or voting more than once under different names, etc.
CJJ, we’ll know that conservatism has failed when they have to change the name. We know what that looks like because liberals had to abandon their identity.
We’ll know conservatism has failed when Republican candidates in national elections deny they are conservative and try to sound more like their Democratic opponent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html
The Washington Post Fact Checker gives Ron Paul 3 Pinocchios, because it stretches credibility that Ron Never looked at his newsletter, also seeing that other people that contributed to the newsletter denied making those statements puts more of the blame on Paul.