• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you care about Ron Paul's statements?

How many of you care about Ron Paul's statements?

  • I don't care but I'll still vote for him

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • I care but I'll still vote for him

    Votes: 4 23.5%

  • I care but I'll still vote for him

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • I don't care I still won't vote for him

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • Total voters
    17
samsmart

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How many of you care about statements attributed to Ron Paul in the 80's and 90's that talk rather badly about certain groups, such as African-Americans and AIDS patients?

How many of you will change your vote because of it?

EDIT: Third choice is "I care but I still won't vote for him" If any mods could change this, many thanks.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
How many of you care about Ron Paul's statements that he made in 80's and 90's that talk rather badly about certain groups?

How many of you will change your vote because of it?

EDIT: Third choice is "I care but I still won't vote for him" If any mods could change this, many thanks.
Click to expand...

Sam there are a lot of reasons I can't bring myself to vote for Paul. There are even more reasons I could never vote for Newt. So among the entire selection among the candidates...in my opinion all are really bad. With the current candidates, the Repubs are in trouble I think.
 
If you are referring to his racial comments in the newsletter thing, there is no actual evidence he made the comments. While he is still responsible for them, it is inaccurate based on current knowledge to say he made the statements.
 
Redress said:
If you are referring to his racial comments in the newsletter thing, there is no actual evidence he made the comments. While he is still responsible for them, it is inaccurate based on current knowledge to say he made the statements.
Click to expand...

Right, but those statements are being attributed to him.

And, personally, I don't care. I'm still voting for the guy. I'm voting for him on civil libertarian grounds. There's just way too much corruption in government right now.
 
samsmart said:
Right, but those statements are being attributed to him.

And, personally, I don't care. I'm still voting for the guy. I'm voting for him on civil libertarian grounds. There's just way too much corruption in government right now.
Click to expand...

If some one is saying he said those things, this is inaccurate. If some one is saying he is responsible for those statements, that is completely accurate. You might want to provide a link so people have a better idea what this is about.
 
Redress said:
If some one is saying he said those things, this is inaccurate. If some one is saying he is responsible for those statements, that is completely accurate. You might want to provide a link so people have a better idea what this is about.
Click to expand...

Thank you - I already edited the original post to say "attributed to him" and if a mod could change the topic to reflect that I would appreciate it.

Here's a link from CNN on the story:
Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays - CNN
 
There are different levels of care, I would care about what politician says, or what is claimed to be said by them, but it doesn't necessarily to the point of making one support or unsupportive of a candidate - with Ron Paul though, I don't think I can support the ideas he brings forth - like closing down the central bank, fiat money is bad etc.

Question though, if he didn't say those things, who is trying to do a hit on Paul? The fact that the newsletter is only now surfacing is itself a hit. Romney and the GOP Establishment scared of a possibility that Paul might actually come close to winning the nomination?
 
Last edited:
There are literally millions of people who say racial things that also have no shot at being President. So I picked the 4th option.
 
nonpareil said:
Question though, if he didn't say those things, who is trying to do a hit on Paul? Romney and the GOP Establishment scare of a possibility that Paul might actually come close to winning the nomination?
Click to expand...

He denies saying them, but they where said under his byline. It is a story that has been around, and with Paul looking to be the next NotRomney, more attention is being paid to what Paul has done, which is going to hurt him and badly.
 
like ole raisin' cain
i will be more interested in how he honestly responds to this matter
 
Redress said:
He denies saying them, but they where said under his byline. It is a story that has been around, and with Paul looking to be the next NotRomney, more attention is being paid to what Paul has done, which is going to hurt him and badly.
Click to expand...

Paul has been 20%+- for a while now, and they are only using the story now? Well, all's fair in politics, Paul wanted media attention, now he gets to feel the bite like all the others.
 
ecofarm said:
What's up with the "ole raisin'" routine? If someone did that regarding Obama, people would freak out.
Click to expand...

LoLz, and the sad part is you are probably right.
 
There's nothing he can do to get my vote, who cares what he said 20 years ago though?
 
While I condemn racism, much of what passes for "racism" in our public sphere is a far cry from the real thing. Not having read the statements attributed to Paul, nor their larger context, I have no firsthand knowledge of what was said or whether it qualifies as "racist" remarks. I'm sure the comments in question were at times harsh, insensitive and certainly politically incorrect, but that's not racism. I will not be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries for a number of reasons, the statements attributed to Rep. Paul - whatever they were - and his defense/explanation/response to inquiries about them are not one of those reasons.
 
justabubba said:
like ole raisin' cain
i will be more interested in how he honestly responds to this matter
Click to expand...

He already responded in 2008 when he ran for president; the last time this bubbled up.
 
Ockham said:
He already responded in 2008 when he ran for president; the last time this bubbled up.
Click to expand...

and we see how well it worked for him then, too

Dr. Paul's flight from a contentious interview to avoid having to address questions about articles within his publication did not well serve his credibility
 
justabubba said:
and we see how well it worked for him then, too

Dr. Paul's flight from a contentious interview to avoid having to address questions about articles within his publication did not well serve his credibility
Click to expand...

It worked fine last time... the reason it's coming up again is because he's rising in the polls.... so those who have a need to knock him down dig it back up again. Not difficult to understand.
 
Ockham said:
It worked fine last time... the reason it's coming up again is because he's rising in the polls.... so those who have a need to knock him down dig it back up again. Not difficult to understand.
Click to expand...
"Those who have a need" as if that's some shadowy, sinister conspiracy out to get Ron Paul? Oh please! We should expect the leading candidate in the Republican race to be attacked by (a) all of his primary opponents and (b) anyone who doesn't want the Republicans to win the general election (which covers essentially everyone not participating in the primary). This has happened to Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. It will happen to Romney should he win the Iowa caucuses. Paul can get his ticket and stand in line. He's nothing special.
 
Uninterested in what he says today, therefore, less interested in what he said 20 years ago.
 
So why does Ron Paul simply not come out and tell the truth.......... his right hand man Lew Rockwell was responsible for this gargage - and he can then move on?

I wonder why he does not do it? (wink wink) ;):roll:
 
Blackstone said:
"Those who have a need" as if that's some shadowy, sinister conspiracy out to get Ron Paul? Oh please! We should expect the leading candidate in the Republican race to be attacked by (a) all of his primary opponents and (b) anyone who doesn't want the Republicans to win the general election (which covers essentially everyone not participating in the primary). This has happened to Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. It will happen to Romney should he win the Iowa caucuses. Paul can get his ticket and stand in line. He's nothing special.
Click to expand...

Yes... which is why I said those who have a need... it's the media, it's the competition, it's those with an agenda. And Ron Paul is not leading in anything...

If you want to argue, at least do it with something you disagree with other than my vocabulary usage. :roll:
 
Let's get something straight. Those who say there is no evidence the statements are his are flat out wrong. His name is in the title. That is the very definition of evidence. Too many people are confusing evidence with proof. There may be no proof, but the evidence is glaring.

Ok...

The statements concern me, but... what concerns me even more is the ham-fisted way he is dealing with the situation. His answers have been incomplete and vague. Repeating variations of "I didn't do it." aren't satisfactory. He needs to man-up and step-up and answer the questions. He needs to give background and detail. Name names, if possible. Explain how he allowed a newsletter to be published under his name without his approval. Until he does so, walking out of an interview like a petulant child does not do him or his campaign any favors. Is this how he deals with crisis situations? If so, then I don't think he's emotionally stable enough to be President. THAT concerns me more than anything else.
 
Ockham said:
It worked fine last time... the reason it's coming up again is because he's rising in the polls.... so those who have a need to knock him down dig it back up again. Not difficult to understand.
Click to expand...
ok, i'll play
share with us how it worked so well for him last time out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom