Are White Nationalists influencing the Ron Paul campaign?

[Donal]

Apparently by "states" they mean "uneducated, poor white guys".

 

[Darth Rotor]

Apparently by "states" they mean "uneducated, poor white guys".

Don't be a fool. If you are going to deal with the WN movement, it is best not to underestimate them.

The WN movement not necessarily poor, nor uneducated. Mostly white, sure.

David Duke, for starters, is neither uneducated, nor poor. That he has chosen to pander to people like Mahmoud of Iran is consistent with his old political preferences, and fashion choices.

If Tim McVeigh was, as a CI, part of a WN inspired reaction to Waco, what makes you think others won't pursue that means to an end? I don't consider that a laughing matter.

DR

 

[The Mysterian]

Don't be a fool. If you are going to deal with the WN movement, it is best not to underestimate them.

The WN movement not necessarily poor, nor uneducated. Mostly white, sure.

David Duke, for starters, is neither uneducated, nor poor. That he has chosen to pander to people like Mahmoud of Iran is consistent with his old political preferences, and fashion choices.

I think Donal means the rank and file WNs. I know Duke has a PhD.

If Tim McVeigh was, as a CI, part of a WN inspired reaction to Waco, what makes you think others won't pursue that means to an end? I don't consider that a laughing matter.

DR

They would. A problem is a lot of those WNs in the more violent part of the movement wind up getting killed or put in jail. So the chances of another one rising up is fairly cmall.

 

[Richard Masters]

Ron Paul smears

He should renounce their support and donate the $500, that Don Black gave him, to maybe a Jewish organization. That ought to get those guys going!! LOL.

BTW, Paul has said in his own words he would have not supported the 1964 (?) Civil Rights Bill. There was also that statement written in his newsletter some years back saying that 'blacks were fleet footed.' So yes there is something to it.

Ron Paul did renounce their support. He did not donate the $500, because that would be illogical.

You are correct. Ron Paul would not have supported the Civil Rights Bill. However, the newsletter you quoted was not written by Ron Paul.

 

[Richard Masters]

More fallacies.

Maybe I just have rose-colored glasses on, but I think that a candidate should not accept campaign donations from questionable sources. To her credit, Hillary Clinton returned campaign money tied to Hsu, and also returned money from Bill Clinton's 11th hour pardons. Edwards returned money from an attorney with a checkered past. Biden returned money from an oilman tied to the oil for food scandal.

No question in my mind; Ron Paul should return the money not just from Don Black, but any money donated through Stormfront.

Why should Ron Paul return the money? Because Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden did it? What kid of reasoning is that? Argumentum ad populum?

 

[rtalman]

Why should Ron Paul return the money? Because Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden did it? What kid of reasoning is that? Argumentum ad populum?

Clinton and Biden acted correctly and properly.

By keeping and spending unquestionably tainted money, Paul is acting incorrectly and improperly. Why should I support a candidate that doesn't care about impropriety or the appearance of impropriety?

 

[Richard Masters]

You should inform yourself

Paul was on Meet the Press this past Sunday. There he discussed both the Civil Rights Bill and the Civil War (amongst other things). If you're interested, I'm sure the video is posted on NBC's page.

As for the topic of this op, Russert didn't question him about the support from "white nationalists" (what a great euphemism!) which disappointed me. Paul's unwillingness to distance himself from the CT crowd and "white nationalists" is unnerving. I'd like to see a reporter hold his feet to the fire on a major stage.

Actually, Ron Paul was already asked about this. He does not want the support of white supremacists. I can't post URLs but you can look for his interview with PBS.

 

[Richard Masters]

Clinton and Biden acted correctly and properly.

By keeping and spending unquestionably tainted money, Paul is acting incorrectly and improperly.

What is your definition of incorrectness and impropriety? If everyone jumps off a bridge is not jumping off a bridge improper and incorrect?

Why should I support a candidate that doesn't care about impropriety or the appearance of impropriety?

Or you could ask yourself why you should support a candidate that thinks deeply about logic, instead of appealing to your emotions.

 

[rtalman]

He does not want the support of white supremacists.

Yet he accepts it.

A Republican with anything more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination would be pilloried by the press over accepting donations from such scum. Every press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection.

Further evidence that the media knows that Paul is a clown.

 

[rtalman]

What is your definition of incorrectness and impropriety? If everyone jumps off a bridge is not jumping off a bridge improper and incorrect?

non sequitur much?

Or you could ask yourself why you should support a candidate that thinks deeply about logic, instead of appealing to your emotions.

Yes, Ron Paul is the most logical clown since Sideshow Bob.

 

[Mister Agenda]

This might be of interest, given the topic, although it doesn't really answer the question:

The New York Times
December 26, 2007, 8:24 pm
Editors’ Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash
By The New York Times

A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.

 

[Donal]

I think Donal means the rank and file WNs. I know Duke has a PhD.



They would. A problem is a lot of those WNs in the more violent part of the movement wind up getting killed or put in jail. So the chances of another one rising up is fairly cmall.

To be honest, when it comes to the hard core idealogical movements, I don't think the leadership actually believes. I think they tend to know they've got power and just push the buttons of their supporters.

I think David Duke would give Jesse Jackson a blumpkin if it would help his political career.

 

[Richard Masters]

//"He does not want the support of white supremacists."

Yet he accepts it.

A Republican with anything more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination would be pilloried by the press over accepting donations from such scum. Every press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection.

Further evidence that the media knows that Paul is a clown.//

"Yet he accepts it."

So what? I'm against the Iraq war, but I would gladly take money from Bush, Cheney and Rudy Giuliani to stop it.

"A Republican with anything more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination would be pilloried by the press over accepting donations from such scum."

They would do the same thing whether or not he returned the money. But again, this is rather irrelevant.

"very press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection."

He hasn't "dogged" the question. He already responded.

Somehow you continue to engage in a guilt-by-association fallacy.

 

[Donal]

Guilt by Acceptance.

 

[Richard Masters]

" What is your definition of incorrectness and impropriety? If everyone jumps off a bridge is not jumping off a bridge improper and incorrect?
non sequitur much?

Actually, this is quite sequitur, since you began by arguing via an argumentum ad populum. So I reversed the tables on you and used the exact same argument, which would be non-sequitur, were it not mocking your original argument.

In other words, you are saying Ron Paul is wrong to keep the money because Hillary and Biden didn't keep the money. Your argument IS EXACTLY like the jumping off a bridge argument.

Non-sequitur.

Quote:
"Or you could ask yourself why you should support a candidate that thinks deeply about logic, instead of appealing to your emotions."

Yes, Ron Paul is the most logical clown since Sideshow Bob.

I'm not surprised you had no response here.

 

[Richard Masters]

Guilt by Acceptance.

Guilty of what by acceptance?

 

[Donal]

White supremacist support.

 

[senorpogo]

Actually, Ron Paul was already asked about this. He does not want the support of white supremacists. I can't post URLs but you can look for his interview with PBS.

I should have been more clear.

I'm well aware that he's said as much, but I think he'd be better served saying this in as high profile of a way as possible so as to kill this "Paul supporters = white supremacists" argument. Just from the conversation here it's obvious that the message hasn't gotten out.

 

[rtalman]

I'm not surprised you had no response here.

Why bother responding? No amount of logic or reasoning can talk a cultist out of his cult.

 

[rtalman]

"very press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection."

He hasn't "dogged" the question. He already responded.

"Dogged by". Passive verb tense.

http://www.amazon.com/English-Gramm...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198791330&sr=8-1
I highly recommend it for cases like yours.