Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

reply to post by FredT


The math of this situation is not as simple as you make it sound. However, I do understand where you are coming from. You raise the question of whether Ron Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Whether he is the anti-Christ posing as the Messiah; beautiful, courageous, persuasive, ready to save America and all Americans. Your doubts and your questions that illustrate these issues are completely valid. But what you have to realize is that the United States of America is not an equation of simple mathematics. Though some of its citizens might be. What you require would be that the Ron Paul campaign return a campaign contribution to Don Black in order to make an example out of him and the ideals that he stands for, thus creating the reflection that Ron Paul is against those things. As others have mentioned, the Ron Paul campaign can send the same message by accepting the donation, and that it is a much better response because Ron Paul sends the message that he doesn't discriminate against anybody. The fact is that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot, for any reason, say that we are for everybody and then discriminate against some of those people. Either one practices discrimination or one does not. When we refer to the United States of America, we refer to all of its citizens, not just some of them.

Perhaps Ron Paul should receive more scrutiny than he already has received? Maybe. All politicians are questionable. All of them have to lie from time to time, or at the very least be deceptive. Given their business this is highly understandable. No one trusts leaders who do not give the appearance of being firm and decisive. The point is that if the Ron Paul campaign had decided to return Black's donation, then that would have conveyed weakness rather than strength. It would have illustrated that Ron Paul is afraid to get his hands dirty dealing with some of the dirtiest people that humanity has to offer. And it is true, as you have in so many words said, that one can get so dirty as to be indistinguishable from those that he is against. Well, that's the risk that all politicians accept, at least the better ones. Some politicians are dirty to begin with and so for them there is no risk at all.

Ron Paul's campaign accepted a donation from a known racist and neo-Nazi supporter. However, Ron Paul did not himself donate to the campaign of a known racist and neo-Nazi supporter. One should stop to recognize that distinction. Ron Paul did the best thing. He kept the donation, and as a person who aspires to be the chief representative of all the American people, he vowed to use it towards to benefit of all Americans. A politician cannot make a better promise than that.

I think that you, FredT, are absolutely correct in your questioning and suspicion of Ron Paul and his political motives. All Americans should display this disposition with reference to all of our leaders and their policies. Under our intense and unwavering glare they would endeavor to do right by us, the American people, rather than doing right just for themselves and their corporate lobbying special interests. We can never be too sure what disguise the wolves would be wearing, or if who that announces that he or she is here to save us is indeed our savior and not the destroyer of us all. Under the circumstances, that is, the circumstances of the United States of America, Ron Paul's campaign did the best thing. Only time will tell if the decision to keep the donation matters and if it was the right thing. Only time will tell if Ron Paul is the best choice and the right choice; the same can be said of all politicians. When one considers that we the people and what each of us stands for are a part of the equation in addition to our political leaders and their policies, one understands that the math of our nation is quite complex. The same can be said for any nation.

reply to post by jsobecky


Okay. Everyone wants to talk about morals and integrity. All of a sudden it's popular and partiotic to question money in politics?

This is hypocrocy at it's best.

Where are all you accuser when ear marks are passing through congress attached to bills which having nothing to do with the marks themselves? But, this isn't news worthy?

Where are you when Rupert Murdoch donates to Hillary Clinton's campaign? The most likely to win Democratic candidate accepting donations from the person that controls most of the worlds media. What happens if Hillary is elected? Looks like ole Rupert is gonna have it easy on FCC standards. As if Colin Powell son didn't make it easy enough when he was commissioner by de-regulating everything the FCC had worked toward for the past 50 years.

Easily manipulated state run media or inflated ear marked bill that the tax payer ends up paying for doesn't seem to bother you as much as a $500 donation from a white supremecist?

No one wants to mention that Ron Paul wouldn't take money from Rupert Murdoch if her offered it on a silver platter. Paul doesn't want corporate involvement in Washington.

Talk to me about morality and integrity? HOGWASH!

Shame on you all for your neglect and misdirection of real issues.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by jsobecky

 

A big difference is it was an individuals donation, not a donation from a group or lobby.

Originally posted by C0le

Originally posted by jsobecky
How many RP supporters would find no problem with him accepting donations from the KKK? NAMBLA? Phelp's Church?

Dr.Paul does not accept Donations from corporate or special interests.

So we wouldn't have a problem as it will never happen.

Nice try though.
[edit on 21-12-2007 by C0le]

No difference at all, as far as I can see.

Should he accept donations from Shirley Phelps-Roper? David Duke? The CEO of Diebold? John Couey?

Really, this individual vs group donating thing is pointless. Groups are made up of individuals. Groups are made bad by bad individuals.


[edit on 21-12-2007 by jsobecky]

reply to post by Areal51


Well said. I guess I can understand why some people get their shorts all in a twist about this. But I have to ask whether these same people consider the sources of the other candidate's contributions. As unsavory as this donor may be to some people he has no chance of affecting RP's policies and positions. This is born-out clearly in RP's political resume. The same cannot be said for the other cadidtaes who have and do cater to big business, lobbyists and SIG's.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


I can't say how it will affect the undecided voter. But, on a poll taken just a few days ago — and well after the news came out of the scandalous donation — this news:

from IndependentPrimary.com

The results are in!

Congressman Ron Paul is the clear favorite of independent-minded voters in the IndependentPrimary.Com internet poll.

Over 110,000 people voted in IndependentPrimary.Com.

Paul won over 90% of the votes cast on the Republican side. (And Rep. Dennis Kucinich won overwhelmingly on the Democratic side).

As long-time independents we decided to do this poll because we were very concerned that Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel were excluded from some of the televised debates by the corporate media. We believe elections should be competitive and that the voters should decide at the polls! We want to give voters the authority to vote with their hearts.

Independents can swing the 2008 primary elections.

44% of voters in New Hampshire are registered independent. Since New Hampshire is an "open primary" state they can vote in the Republican presidential primary.

Independents ... in other words, undeclared voters don't seem bothered by the news. These are the people who keep their options open until the end. Maybe not officially "undecided", but definitely not claiming Democrat or Republican.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Originally posted by tyranny22
It'll give him bad press for a week. It may turn a couple voters the other way ... but, they weren't sure they were going to vote for him anyway.

Isn't candidate Paul trying to get these undecided votes?

Isn't the goal to WIN the election next November?

I am not worried about how the Paul supporters are taking this media blitz the core will remain true and defend him in this position...

..How are the undecided voters taking this?

I've been reading over some of Ron Paul's material -- including some of those You Tube presentations and I'm all for any candidate who wants to pull out of Iraq... immediately if not sooner. RP is the only Republican who's for that and because I can't see that any Democrat is going to win this race.. the reason being is the Evangelical vote for only those Pro-life candidates .. and that's a HUGE voting demographic we're talking about here. ...
Just rambling on. I'm still processing everything. I don't agree with RP's acceptance of Black's donation or anyone of his ilk regardless that it's just a personal donation... makes no difference in my book .... BUT, just wondering.. realistically, what are RP chances of winning this election anyway?? I'm serious.
Sure, he's a real radical but we need someone like him to shake up the system in order bring about real change. The system is broke, it needs to be fixed. There's much to be said about the chaos theory when it comes to bringing about real change. Shake things up and see where everything lands. From there rebuild and maybe someone like RP can do that.

I just want out of Iraq. I'm no different than most people out there now who want the war to end.

Sorry for the rambling but just thought I'd share my thoughts on this.

I would be willing to support and vote for a candidate who will get of out Iraq but only if he has real chance of winning this election. So what are his chances?? This is what I would like to know.

The only candidate who might win is Hucklebee .... once again, it's that Religious Right vote that's important. So would they consider RP? I wonder.


Oh... and as far as RP getting the undecided votes, I can't see that happening if he keeps accepting donations from people like Black. No way... So in this regard, I can't see that he could possibly get the votes from that sector if he keeps doing that.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Palasheea]

reply to post by Palasheea


Many people keep saying that Ron Paul has NO chance of winning.

In fact, I believe he has a very good chance. The polls that currently rank him in the 5% range are taken from roughly 280 declared Republicans that voted for Bush in the last election. These no doubt make up the 30% that still support Bush to this day. In the actual primary I think we'll see Ron Paul run away with an overwhelming victory.

After that ... it's anybody's guess what will happen. I don't expect a landslide from other state's primaries, but the GOP is still faced with a tough decision. Risk losing the White House by nominating a candidate who's not as likely to win against a Democratic powerhouse such as Clinton, or nominate the man who opposes everything the GOP has become.

I'll bet on no nomination. But, that still leaves a BIG question in the air. Will Paul run as on a third party ticket? He's said time and time again he has "no plan to do so". But, he's convieniently left the door open by NOT saying he WOULD NOT. I believe if his party denies him the nomination (and it's apparent that he should have won the nomination, from the results of the primaries), I think he will seek third party status. Can this draw enough votes away from the Republican's candidate and give the Democrats the advantage? I think so.

It's my belief that if Ron Paul does well in the primaries the GOP better have enough sense to give him the nod. If not, they'll convieniently hand the White House to the Democratic Party on a silver platter (which to me wouldn't be such a bad thing - I'm a democrat voting for the best person: Ron Paul).

[edit on 21-12-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Okay. Everyone wants to talk about morals and integrity. All of a sudden it's popular and partiotic to question money in politics?
:
No one wants to mention that Ron Paul wouldn't take money from Rupert Murdoch if her offered it on a silver platter. Paul doesn't want corporate involvement in Washington.

Why not? Rupert Murdoch is an individual. Isn't that the point you all are trying to make about Black? We wouldn't want to discriminate against Rupert Murdoch, now would we?

Originally posted by tyranny22
Talk to me about morality and integrity? HOGWASH!

Shame on you all for your neglect and misdirection of real issues.

It seems to me that you want to give RP immunity from bad moral decisions. You want him to sleep with dogs and to not catch fleas.

Well, birds of a feather flock together. You can't have it both ways. This is the real issue, the one that you want to avoid.

Originally posted by Areal51
As others have mentioned, the Ron Paul campaign can send the same message by accepting the donation, and that it is a much better response because Ron Paul sends the message that he doesn't discriminate against anybody.

The only people that are accepting this explanation are blind RP supporters.

Originally posted by Areal51
The fact is that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot, for any reason, say that we are for everybody and then discriminate against some of those people. Either one practices discrimination or one does not. When we refer to the United States of America, we refer to all of its citizens, not just some of them.

Sometimes, discrimination is good. Many times, discrimination is good.

Would you let a convicted pedophile babysit your children? Would you let your daughter hang out with a pimp?

Originally posted by Areal51
Ron Paul's campaign accepted a donation from a known racist and neo-Nazi supporter. However, Ron Paul did not himself donate to the campaign of a known racist and neo-Nazi supporter. One should stop to recognize that distinction.

I must admit, any logic or reason in that statement escapes me...

Thanks tyrrany, let me think about that.

I think I'm stuck on the evangelical voting demographic and Clinton's not going to get that.

RP's potential to become the top Republican candidate, at this point in time seems to be a real possibility. It appears that he's getting a tremendous amount of support from so many different demographics out there... moreso than all of those other candidates.

Just from spending a couple of hours reading over everything having to do with RP.. this seems to be the case.

I would think that if it comes down to RP vs Clinton.. RP would win.

reply to post by jsobecky


Rupert Murdoch represents corporate dominance and influence on politics. Black represents supremist ignorance. There's a difference. It's a shame that some can't see it.

A $500 donation is the real issue? Not the Iraq war? Not healthcare? Not the ecomomy?

wow.

I suggest you step back for one moment and examine your priorities.

reply to post by Palasheea


Dr. Paul receives virtually NO Main-Stream-Media coverage at all.. Yet still He Broke the 1 day 24 hour Online fund raising record on November 5th (Over 4 million), All of which were from the grassroots support not affiliated with his official campaign, Ron Paul doesn't accept donations from special interests, or corporate interests, unlike the rest
of the GOP candidates.

Ron Paul also broke the ALL TIME Primary and Presidential, 24 hour fund raising record on December 16th (over 6 million), All of which
again were from the grassroots unaffiliated with the official campaign and with no donations accepted from corporate or
special interests, and no media attention, Spammers?

Also His supporters unaffiliated with his official campaign are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars which are
currently funding his own Blimp, which is now touring the east cost for the primaries.

And its not like he has won more straw polls than ANY other GOP candidate, and it's not like he has more meet up groups
than any other GOP candidate...

All of which were were not reported by MSM and those that were were brushed of as nothing more then "spammers"

If this were any other candidate owned by special interests, This type of news would be on 24/7 loop, but since its
Dr.Paul it isn't "real support" I guess... Just a bunch of spammers that don't really exist....


The facts are Even thought MSM tries to ignor him, his support continues to grow, just think about that, the amount of support this man has all while hes being censored form msm, thats amazing in and of itself...

His chances are greater then they can imagine...



A lot of people keep falling into the status quo trap and they go with the options the MSM gives us,

Get out of that crap, Vote for the guy who deserves to be in office and will uphold his oath to the Constitution....

Don't fall into the lesser evil game, if they are both evil, don't vote for either or you are contributing to the problem....

vote for the guy who will again, uphold his oath to the Constitution....

this whole "chances" of winning game is just a bunch of bs MSM puts out to get us to elect one of the two options they give us....


I speak for myself, but I REJECT their options...

If i lose i lose knowing i didn't contribute to the status quo which serves to screw me over.

I'm a gun owner, If a Democrat gets elected and tries to ban guns so what? thats why I got guns, the can ban em all they want they still gotta come to my door and get em..
(not implying all dems hate guns)

stop worrying about the "what if the other guy gets elected game"

and start worrying about what if the right guy DOESN'T get elected.

his chances are decided by people who decide to vote based on chances...
if they jump on board he WILL win.

Also regardless of what MSM tries to spin Ron Paul is the ONLY republican that can beat a democrat...

His support comes from ALL sides not just one. thats how America should be.

Not only that but the democrats proved they had no intentions of ending the war last election..


[edit on 21-12-2007 by C0le]

reply to post by C0le


Great post. I think one thing that shows his greatly underestimated support is a recent "Phone Poll" that was recorded.

When asked what Republican candidate this person would vote for Ron Paul was not an option. There was an option however for "Other or None of the Above". The person chose "Other" for Ron Paul. The pre-recorded message went on to tell the person, "Thank you for your vote and you will be removed from our call list. Sorry if we've inconvieienced you in any way. Have a good day."

Ron Paul supporters, or at least non-"top-tier" supporters were systematticly being removed from call lists. Yet his numbers continued to increase. Explain that.

I think it's a show that this movement has become unstoppable and unyeilding. Even to would be mud-slingers.

here's the video that has the audio from the phone call.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by tyranny22]

reply to post by UScitizen


Oh undoubtably they have recieved contributions from avowed rascists, and if they discover that and don't return the money, I'd be just as concerned about their ethics, as I am with Mr. Pauls.

I had not intended to return to this thread, as I saw no point in arguing over something as subjective as morality, where everyone is an expert, and yet so few are practitioners.

I have great admiration and respect for many of you, on both sides of this issue. I respect the fact that you care enough to look at this very closely, to do as my friend palashea is doing now, and delve deeper.

In the end, it is a matter of each of us overcoming patterns instilled by those who want to control our minds and actions. It was said once that politics is war, without any of the honor. I think we see the truth of that statement in this small microcosm of the coming '08 campaign, as smear for smear's sake takes hold.

In the end, this $500.00 boils down to a single issue that we must decide for ourselves. Do we decide, like a season of Big Brother (TV show), to vote for or against someone because of how overall popular they are with the media, or over what their voting record says they will likely do for this nation? Do we let ourselves be led, or do the leading?

Do we decide based on "group think", directed by the media, that morality is defined by accepting the backing of a white radical as bad, yet accepting the backing of a Jewish banker is good? Both could, and probably do, have desires and wishes for the direction our nation should take. Both have records of satisfying self interest.

Or do we say that ANY person that is an American citizen has an equal right to participate in government? Do we allow the media to steer the "morals" of the political process, or do we follow the Constitution, which allows each person equal access?

Please do not misunderstand me in this. I have no use for people like Mr. Black, ( an ironic name for someone with his particular sentiments ), nor do I dislike Jewish bankers any worse than other flavors of bloodsucking parasites. But it would seem that each has a place in our political system, and one voice is as valid as the other. To do any less than to allow them to participate, on an individual basis, is to renege on being a Constitutionalist.

reply to post by intrepid


The same does apply to all of the other candidates. If they discover donations from, shall we say, less than savory characters, and they don't return the money, then the same questions can and should be raised. I've a strange feeling that's why Hillary doesn't fully disclose. Or several of the other big dogs in this fight.

C0le,

Well, just from watching those few RP video's, it's just amazing how the media is really coming down on this guy. But if Murdoch isn't crazy about him then I'll keep RP on my candidate consideration list.

Thanks for the point by point break down on RP campaign strategy's. I will just continue to read up on everything but once again, I really can't see a Democrat winning this election at this point in time for reasons I've already given. And when I pick out someone I want to vote for, I much prefer that it be someone who has a real chance of winning. I don't agree with everything RP is saying but the bottom line is, I want out of this war. Any candidate who's for that.. and who has a chance of winning will be the one I vote for.

reply to post by tyranny22

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by Palasheea

 

Many people keep saying that Ron Paul has NO chance of winning.
:
I'll bet on no nomination. But, that still leaves a BIG question in the air. Will Paul run as on a third party ticket? He's said time and time again he has "no plan to do so". But, he's convieniently left the door open by NOT saying he WOULD NOT. I believe if his party denies him the nomination (and it's apparent that he should have won the nomination, from the results of the primaries), I think he will seek third party status. Can this draw enough votes away from the Republican's candidate and give the Democrats the advantage? I think so.

You bring up an interesting scenario, one that I see having a likely chance of playing out:

RP is forced into a 3rd party candidacy. He accepts it.

Will he have a chance of winning it all?

Which party, Rep's or Dem's, will be more hurt/helped by his 3rd party candidacy?

Questions for another thread, I know.

reply to post by redmage


It is, however, true that he is a major supporter via "stormfront" of that lovely bunch of wackos.

reply to post by FredT


I'd keep it too, just for spite!

reply to post by Palasheea


He doesn't support that ideology any more than you do. It was an honest mistake, that in MHO, that he and his crew didn't handle properly. Which could lead to questions, rightly or wrongly, about his credibility.