Ron Paul's racist support base finally exposed by the media

Godfaesten wrote:I think he's better than any of the other major candidates, but nowhere near ideal.

I think that he is worst in almost every respect of the candidates. Ron Paul is such a reactionary that Newt Gingrich nearly adopts the form of a progressive by comparison. The only positive aspect of Paul's presidency in relation to that of the other contenders is that it would expedite America's demise somewhat.

Celtiberian wrote:He wants to replace the Federal Reserve with an entirely private (i.e., unregulated) banking industry, and tie our currency to the gold standard. As much as I despise the Federal Reserve system, I detest Paul's alternative far more.

The Federal Reserve despite its name is a private and not a government bank.

Paul is overrated, he is viewed as a messiah by some. He is merely a candidate that is much better then the others. Paul is a libertarian capitalist, that really shows how bad all the other candidates are.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:The Federal Reserve despite its name is a private and not a government bank.

It's a quasi-public institution, even though it exercises a high degree of autonomy. As objectionable as the Federal Reserve is, it's much more stable than Paul's proposal of competing currencies would be.

Celtiberian wrote:It's a quasi-public institution, even though it exercises a high degree of autonomy. As objectionable as the Federal Reserve is, it's much more stable than Paul's proposal of competing currencies would be.

The emphasis should be on much. I shudder to think of the devastating monetary crises we would face should Paul's asinine plan come to fruition (which, fortunately, will never occur).

Rev Scare wrote:The emphasis should be on much. I shudder to think of the devastating monetary crises we would face should Paul's asinine plan come to fruition (which, fortunately, will never occur).

Could it not be argued that his plan's failure could cause enough unrest that revolutionary change could be possible?

Balkan Beast wrote:Could it not be argued that his plan's failure could cause enough unrest that revolutionary change could be possible?

I believe it was Georges Sorel who argued that socialists should support the establishment of laissez-faire conditions because it would hasten the overthrow of capitalism. However, I feel that it's more likely that Paul's competing currency policy will never be allowed to come to fruition for precisely that reason. Or, if it was somehow allowed to do so, that the state would quickly return to the Federal Reserve system upon the policy's inevitable failure.

Capitalism requires an intervening state in order to remain functional, and the bourgeoisie and political establishment are under no illusions to the contrary. All of the anti-government rhetoric employed by the Republicans is merely to secure votes from the petite bourgeoisie. (The only government programs the Republicans are genuinely interested in ending are those providing social welfare to the masses.) Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a highly ideological anomaly in the party, and I don't doubt the sincerity of his ridiculous propertarian beliefs. The establishment doesn't support him because they understand his programs would lead to political instability and economic failure. In other words, the system is fragile enough as it is and they can't risk allowing his irresponsible policy proposals to be experimented with.

White nationalists are at heart nothing more than libertarians who happen to be racist, Don Black and Ron Paul are natural allies. Paul is a reactionary bourgeois bigot who doesn't care who supports him so long as he gets the precious dough to help him reach the White House.

That said, if he does get into power he might completely destroy the US economy, so ultimately it may have positive results for us.

Celtiberian wrote:I believe it was Georges Sorel who argued that socialists should support the establishment of laissez-faire conditions because it would hasten the overthrow of capitalism. However, I feel that it's more likely that Paul's competing currency policy will never be allowed to come to fruition for precisely that reason. Or, if it was somehow allowed to do so, that the state would quickly return to the Federal Reserve system upon the policy's inevitable failure.

Capitalism requires an intervening state in order to remain functional, and the bourgeoisie and political establishment are under no illusions to the contrary. All of the anti-government rhetoric employed by the Republicans is merely to secure votes from the petite bourgeoisie. (The only government programs the Republicans are genuinely interested in ending are those providing social welfare to the masses.) Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a highly ideological anomaly in the party, and I don't doubt the sincerity of his ridiculous propertarian beliefs. The establishment doesn't support him because they understand his programs would lead to political instability and economic failure. In other words, the system is fragile enough as it is and they can't risk allowing his irresponsible policy proposals to be experimented with.

In addition, Ron Paul's policies would undermine, at least in the short term, the monopoly capital that the system upholds. In either case, even if Paul were elected, which should be regarded as nigh impossible, he would accomplish little. The office of the president is vested with modest formal powers. The president's authority stems in large part from his enormous influence as the leading national figurehead. Ultimately, presidential discretion is greatly restricted by Congress. Paul simply lacks the political support structure that would enable him to enact his policies in the first place, and that would, of course, presuppose his political suitability.