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/pol...

https://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story...

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

Wikipedia is also very biased on political matters, according to its co-founder Larry Sanger.

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

I don't get your point, even Wikipedia claims that he didn't write them.

Well, if 51% of Wikipedians believe it's true, it must be so.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Thanks, that's true.