5 ms·

I mean, come on. https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+racism&oq=ron+paul+racism&aqs=chrome..69i57.2508j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/

• ulucs 6y ago
  Sorry, that's misinformation (pulled right from your search). Nothing there points to Paul being racist https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/ https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.theatlantic.com/pol... https://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters/ https://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story...
  • pvg 6y ago
    I think 'cherrypicked out of your search' is more accurate. For instance, here's the first author you selected "Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review [...]" Wikipedia is maybe a more reasonable averaging of all sources. And it's mostly a long history of bigoted stuff that Ron Paul was not responsible for but somehow kept showing up in a newsletter with his name on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters
    • ulucs 6y ago
      I don't get your point, even Wikipedia claims that he didn't write them.
      • tptacek 6y ago
        Well, if 51% of Wikipedians believe it's true, it must be so.
    • drak0n1c 6y ago
      Wikipedia is also very biased on political matters, according to its co-founder Larry Sanger. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
• phoinix 6y ago
  Actually in the 1978 that published some controversial publications i was not even born yet. However Ron is saying that they were taken out of context. Authoritative news usually do that, that's why 90% of the time they spread fake news. Some people may argue that authoritative news spread fake news 99% of the time, but i find that a hyperbole and i stick to the 90%. Point me if you so desire to the exact publication with the context around it. One or two pages would be fine. Thanks.
  • pvg 6y ago
    Ron Paul's newsletter didn't contain bigoted content because 90% of mainstream news is fake news doesn't sound empirically plausible to me. What are the 9 fake stories of the 10 top stories reported in mainstream media yesterday? Or really any 9 fake stories, out of the thousands.
    • phoinix 6y ago
      Well that 99% percent statement was not meant to be read absolutely seriously, but many news outlets take out of context, sentences of the political opposition all the time. I am sorry, but half the truth, is half the lie and not half the truth. You still didn't point out a good example of a racist statement from Paul. With the full context around it. And if you can, limit the statement's time horizon on last one or two decades.
  • oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
    > Some people may argue that authoritative news spread fake news 99% of the time, but i find that a hyperbole and i stick to the 90%. Nice try, but referencing an equally baseless but more extreme claim doesn't make your own claim less baseless.
    • phoinix 6y ago
      Thanks, that's true.