If he were racist i certainly wouldn't defend that, but I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusions. His statement explicitly says he: A. didn't edit it B. has been taking moral responsibility for that for 10 years
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
It might be over for Ron Paul running on the GOP ticket. He gave it a valiant effort, but he needed a much stronger showing in New Hampshire. There are a lot of libertarians there. He shoulda been able to get at least double the votes that he got in the end. I think he will consistently get 2-10% from here out. While the money he raised was great, it will dry up. He is becoming the Ross Perot spot only he doesn't have the money to support his own campaign. At least they are allowing him a presence at the forum tomorrow, but I don't think he'll get much attention.
the issue no is vote fraud.. it is even worse than i ever imagined. we need to go to an honest system.
Actually it is very easy, especially if electronic voting is used. Audits of paper ballots are controlled and "random" samples are preselected. But probably unnecessary, considering how dumbed down the population is. Regardless, I think 10% is good, right on point of how many people still have a brain.
I'd like to hear, or make that see since RP supporters seem to exist on the internet, an explanation why people who know that the elections are rigged donated record amounts of money to a campaign in said election?
What I don't understand is if we can know exactly, to the penny, the balance of all our bank accounts, from any ATM in the world, and can withdraw money with a PIN, and make deposits, and use credit cards (yes I know there is some fraud in that arena), why we can't have solid and fair voting. Assign everyone an ATM card, if used twice, it's voided. c
Like I said before, it would be easier with electronic voting with a single system on a national level, but this is the primaries. To rig this system would be so difficult that it is unimaginable. And there is nothing so far that even hints at voter fraud. Evangelicals are mostly supporting the baptist minister. The population as a whole is in support of a populist message after an extensive period of being governed by the "establishment". Nothing so far represents vote fraud unless you talk to RP supporters who have it in their head that he should be getting >50% of the vote just because youtube polls have him there. It really is silly.
Where I live, I am given an activation code to even vote in the first place and multiple workers verify that my name is disabled after the first use. It is all but impossible to vote twice and any suspicious results are tallied again by a manual paper count.
You are dreaming dude. Unless those 2 people looking over every voter's shoulder, there is no way to know if the electronic machine cheated except by using exit polls....