Huntsman vs Gingrich debate

[stone]

Tortoise, do you trust Ron Paul to have a zero tolerance attitude towards racism if he becomes president?

[Tortoise]

Tortoise, do you trust Ron Paul to have a zero tolerance attitude towards racism if he becomes president?

Don't worry, Ron Paul will never be president

I expect the law of the land to protect one's person and property independently of one's race. One specific example is that if a person hits me over the head with a bat, he should go to jail for assault, and if he hits me over the head with a bat while yelling a racial slur, he should go to jail for... assault. Not assault plus "racism," or assault plus "hate crime," or whatever. The fact that he happens to be yelling a racial slur in the latter case but not in the former is immaterial as far as the protection of person and property are concerned.

Ugly, near-universally despised opinions are vices, not crimes.

[stone]

Tortoise, in the lead up to the Rwanda genocide, there was a radio station putting out a torrent of sectarian bile. Would you support such a radio station being allowed to continue? Would you be happy to associate at all with any polician who had actually supported that radio station?

I can sort of understand the free speech argument. I might just still vote for a politician who did not want the radio station closed on free speech grounds. I would not vote for any politician who had given or received anything from the radio station.

Personally I do think hate crimes are different. They have different effects on the victim and involve a different mind set from the perpetrator. Lets face it, sexual assults only warrant the seriousness they do because of the emotional aspect. The physical harm might be negligable. Same rationale for hate crimes IMO.

[Storm]

Ron Paul oversaw the writing of a racist newletter in his name for many years and is therefore not qualified to be President. He also advocates legalizing all drugs and withdrawing from our role on the world stage. He is a screwball.

He's not racist, and I have yet to hear one cogent argument for prohibition of controlled substances.  Did you know Thomas Jefferson grew marijuana?  If our founding fathers grew it, don't you think they're probably rolling in their graves over the police state we've created to imprison people who commit victimless crimes?

And how has somebody committed a crime when there were no victims?

[stone]

Storm would you have an age limit for drug use (eg must be over 21, 18, 16, 10 whatever) ?
Would you prohibit TV adverts for crack or whatever?

[Reub]

Ron Paul oversaw the writing of a racist newletter in his name for many years and is therefore not qualified to be President. He also advocates legalizing all drugs and withdrawing from our role on the world stage. He is a screwball.

He's not racist, and I have yet to hear one cogent argument for prohibition of controlled substances.  Did you know Thomas Jefferson grew marijuana?  If our founding fathers grew it, don't you think they're probably rolling in their graves over the police state we've created to imprison people who commit victimless crimes?

And how has somebody committed a crime when there were no victims?

If he is not a racist then why did he allow a newsletter to be printed and distributed in his name that was full of racist comments? This went on for years and he profited handsomely from it.

[Storm]

Read this and try to understand:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-pre ... s-20111227

Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters.  Lew Rockwell did:

These newsletters were published before a decade of war that has exhausted many Americans, before the financial crisis, and before the tea party.

All three made Ron Paul's ideas seem more relevant to our politics. They made antigovernment libertarianism seem (to some) like a sensible corrective.

But in the 1990s and 1980s, antigovernment sentiment was much less mainstream. It seemed contained to the racist Right Wing, people who supported militia movements, who obsessed over political correctness, who were suspicious of free-trade deals like NAFTA.

At that time, a libertarian theorist, Murray Rothbard argued that libertarians ought to engage in "Outreach to the Rednecks" in order to insert their libertarian theories into the middle of the nation's political passions.

Rothbard had tremendous influence on Lew Rockwell, and the whole slice of the libertarian movement that adored Ron Paul.
But Rothbard and Rockwell never stuck with their alliances with angry white men on the far right. They have been willing to shift alliances from left to right and back again.

Before this "outreach" to racists, Rothbard aligned himself with anti-Vietnam war protesters in the 1960s. In the 2000s, after the "outreach" had failed, Rockwell complained bitterly about "Red-State fascists" who supported George Bush and his war. So much for the "Rednecks." The antigovernment theories stay the same, the political strategy shifts in odd and extreme directions.

As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. They actually thought that appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s. After that strategy yielded almost nothing -- Paul's admirers abandoned it.

It still probably makes him unelectable, but I think it's understandable that he wanted to appeal to the "redneck voters," which sounded like a viable strategy before 9/11 and 2008.

[Coffee]

"Old, Rich White Guys"?

Apparently, it's okay to single out somebody for their skin color... as long as that skin color is white?

Would you feel better if they were old, rich black guys? Or old, rich brown guys?

[Storm]

"Old, Rich White Guys"?

Apparently, it's okay to single out somebody for their skin color... as long as that skin color is white?

Would you feel better if they were old, rich black guys? Or old, rich brown guys?

It's not a racist thing, it's an establishment thing.  Old rich white guys have ruled the world since the middle ages.  Why should it change any time soon?

[Coffee]

"Old, Rich White Guys"?

Apparently, it's okay to single out somebody for their skin color... as long as that skin color is white?

Would you feel better if they were old, rich black guys? Or old, rich brown guys?

It's not a racist thing, it's an establishment thing.  Old rich white guys have ruled the world since the middle ages.  Why should it change any time soon?

I'm not following your logic: All of Africa is ruled by people of color.  Pretty much all of North and South America (with the exception of Canada) is ruled by either people of color, or women. 

[moda0306]

Coffee,

Yes... poor groups have leaders too... it doesn't do anything to eliminate the point about who really rules the wealth of the world.

[Coffee]

When I hear people talk about "Who really rules the wealth of the world," my red flags go up, as that's been historically used by the tin-foil hat crowd as code for "The Jews"?

[stone]

"Reaching out" by appearing racist is just about the most cowardly, dishonerable sleaze I could imagine. I pity the racist. I loathe any non-racist who deploys racism for political gain.

Reaching out to "rednecks" is great. Poor white people should have great political representation just like rich black people etc etc should. Many of those people may happen to be racists. You can draw the line and say you will fight their corner so long as it doesn't entail racism.

[moda0306]

I have read some writings of a very extreme libertarian suggesting that democracy is as much tyranny as any dictatorship, and that only a system built 100% on private property is acceptable... they even go as far as to say that private "insurance companies" would defend our property, though I don't know who would setttle contract disputes... more insurance companies?  No infrastructure... all private water pumps and sewage.

They suggest turning everyone against democracy by convincing them that democracy hurts them as well, and that they should cling to private property to protect what they've worked hard for from others looking to take it from them.

In this way, they can structurally, slowly turn a democracy into an effective Ayn Randian plutocracy (though they wouldn't call it that).  Land would eventually be given by the gov't to the taxpayers to the degree that they've paid back-taxes.

I don't have a link, and I'm not trying to project these opinions on people here, but there's a lot to be said for trying to find a common link with the masses and make them convinced of a false (or true) enemy... even if those masses ARE your enemy.  I don't think Ron Paul's racist (though his son certainly appears to be), but the crime of not acknowledging the vastly skewed wealth distribution as a result, often, of past colonialism, as opposed to simply a racist instinct in a bad interaction, is the real problem.

[MediumTex]

When I hear people talk about "Who really rules the wealth of the world," my red flags go up, as that's been historically used by the tin-foil hat crowd as code for "The Jews"?

I don't think that sentiment applies to all of the tin foil crowd.

Starting with European colonial powers several centuries ago, and continuing with the U.S. starting about 1900, the rest of the world has usually been able to safely say that when the white people show up on your shores you better keep an eye on your natural resources and culture because both of them are in danger.  Most of these white people have been Protestants or Catholics, not Jews.

I'm not reading any anti-Jewish sentiment in the posts above.  When talking about American electoral politics, I think that we are usually talking about white Christian men, though 2008 was a notable exception on the Democratic side with the top two contenders ultimately being a half-black, half-white man (who was raised by a white family) and a white woman, but both were still Christians.

[moda0306]

MT,

In foreign politics, my instinct is to say that there is some what could be called antisemitism... often, though, anti-Zionists acknowledge the millions of Jews who aren't militaristic or Zionist, and try to draw the line and not paint with a broad brush... this is probably not obvious when we see Israel's flag burning in the Middle East, but we're talking about America here.

Regarding finance, I have never heard somebody, in the context of helping the "99%," rag on Jewish people.  The only anti-semitism I've heard is from very conservative individuals... bordering simply on racist imbeciles.

I don't know if this is an accurate sample by any means, but I have no reason to believe there's even a soft undercurrent of racism against Jews within the populist movements today.

[MediumTex]

MT,

In foreign politics, my instinct is to say that there is some what could be called antisemitism... often, though, anti-Zionists acknowledge the millions of Jews who aren't militaristic or Zionist, and try to draw the line and not paint with a broad brush... this is probably not obvious when we see Israel's flag burning in the Middle East, but we're talking about America here.

Regarding finance, I have never heard somebody, in the context of helping the "99%," rag on Jewish people.  The only anti-semitism I've heard is from very conservative individuals... bordering simply on racist imbeciles.

I don't know if this is an accurate sample by any means, but I have no reason to believe there's even a soft undercurrent of racism against Jews within the populist movements today.

It's ironic, but one of the best friends the Jewish people have had in recent decades was the populist Harry S. Truman, who was about as far from the financial elite (Jewish or otherwise) as you will ever find.  I think he simply felt that helping Israel get on its feet was the right thing to do.  It certainly had nothing to do with the Jews running the world.  If anything, Truman consistently positioned himself in opposition to what we have recently been calling "the 1%."

[moda0306]

Didn't Truman almost get universal healthcare passed?

[Coffee]

MT,

In foreign politics, my instinct is to say that there is some what could be called antisemitism... often, though, anti-Zionists acknowledge the millions of Jews who aren't militaristic or Zionist, and try to draw the line and not paint with a broad brush... this is probably not obvious when we see Israel's flag burning in the Middle East, but we're talking about America here.

Were we even talking about Israel? What did I miss?

Regarding finance, I have never heard somebody, in the context of helping the "99%," rag on Jewish people.  The only anti-semitism I've heard is from very conservative individuals... bordering simply on racist imbeciles.

I would suggest that you spend 10 seconds on Google, and educate yourself.  I mean... stuff that has been covered on all of the most watched and read mainstream news organizations, and "you've never heard of them"? Um...  Okay.  I'm not quite sure what to say about that?

I don't know if this is an accurate sample by any means, but I have no reason to believe there's even a soft undercurrent of racism against Jews within the populist movements today.

The whole idea that you would even consider Jews a "Race" ... bothers me.

[Coffee]

When I hear people talk about "Who really rules the wealth of the world," my red flags go up, as that's been historically used by the tin-foil hat crowd as code for "The Jews"?

I don't think that sentiment applies to all of the tin foil crowd.

Agreed.  I was referring to a certain kind of tin foil, I guess.

Starting with European colonial powers several centuries ago, and continuing with the U.S. starting about 1900, the rest of the world has usually been able to safely say that when the white people show up on your shores you better keep an eye on your natural resources and culture because both of them are in danger.  Most of these white people have been Protestants or Catholics, not Jews.

The fact that they were white is irrelevant.  You might as well say, "When people wearing shoes and carrying bibles show up..."

I'm not reading any anti-Jewish sentiment in the posts above.  When talking about American electoral politics, I think that we are usually talking about white Christian men, though 2008 was a notable exception on the Democratic side with the top two contenders ultimately being a half-black, half-white man (who was raised by a white family) and a white woman, but both were still Christians.

When people talk about "Who really rules the wealth of the world" -- do you really think they're talking about the Babtists?

[moda0306]

Coffee,

You seem to have an inordinant fear of antisemitism, at least from what I have observed from acquaintences of mine, none of which have ever had anything dispariging to say about Jews, but often plenty to say about blacks, muslims, women, Asians, Hmong, Mexicans, Canadians, Europeans, gays, "secularists," and more I probably can't think of.  I can tell that NOBODY in the more liberal persuasion that I know has any ill-will towards Jews.  They talk about the 99% and the 1%... Western powers vs indigenous populations that have been exploited... the born-wealthy vs the middle class... capitalism vs other forms of gov't... but never about Jews.  The only thing I've ever heard, was 3rd person, my Dad telling me that my very Republican, conservative neighbor said very bad thing about Jews.  I was 12.  I literally have never thought to myself anything negative about Jews as a people, and referring to such thoughts as "racism" was just a general term.  Islaam is not a race, but I'd call someone racist if they propose that we "nuke those towel-head muslims."  I realize that there are Arabs and Persians, as well as others, and that their religion isn't a race.  It's just a general term people have come to use to describe immature assumptions and dehuminization of other cultures, whether religious or other.

I didn't mean to offend you with that term, nor imply that I deem Jews to be inferior as a group identified by their "race" (or lack thereof).

I brought up Israel becuase it is the target of much criticism from people that Zionists try to peg as anti-Semetic.  This is where 95% of the the volatility towards Jews, or assumed as such, may come from in this day and age.

Your condescending suggestion that I read the news is something I'll have to dive into.  I follow economics, but tend to pay little attention to other news if I don't find it particularly interesting.  I understand that decades ago people thought "Jews control too much" and similar nonsense, but I truly deeply feel that we've mostly gotten past the "Jewish" part, and have drilled down to the fact that it's the individuals and even moreso the trends of wealth, not Religions affiliations of anyone involved, that is the problem.  Further, our definitions of what "news" is might be different.

[Storm]

Coffee, when I talk about "rich, old, white" men who have power, I am going back to the British and Spanish empires of old.  I never believed any of those "zionist cabal that rules the banking world" conspiracy theories, and wasn't even thinking of that.  You seemed to have somehow injected anti-semitism into this discussion, when there was none implied or intended.

Let's get back to talking about the "rich, old, white" men that rule the universe... 

If you want to see a cool website:

http://theyrule.net

You can see who really runs the world.  These are the men and women that sit on the boards of the most powerful corporations and organizations.  You can map connections between them - very interesting stuff.

[Storm]

Here's a pretty good snapshot of the "powers that be" who give the "Big Boy Briefings" to new presidents:

[MediumTex]

You know, the last discussion we had about Jewish issues didn't end well.  Personally, I do not have anything but good feelings for Jewish people, but for some reason this topic gets noisy and when we discuss it here I don't know if any of us walks away from it any smarter.

Maybe we should steer things back toward the Huntsman/Gingrich debate.

[Storm]

You know, the last discussion we had about Jewish issues didn't end well.  Personally, I do not have anything but good feelings for Jewish people, but for some reason this topic gets noisy and when we discuss it here I don't know if any of us walks away from it any smarter.

Maybe we should steer things back toward the Huntsman/Gingrich debate.

Back to the debate - does anybody believe if Huntsman, Gingrich, Paul, or even Obama, are elected, that they will somehow be able to do everything they promise without getting shut down by the institutions and people in the picture above?