Are Ron Paul supporters the most annoying nutbags ever?!?!

[Patrick]

I've marginally followed the presidential campaign here in the states and have started taking a little more interest with the primaries moving into high gear. Now Ron Paul is a Republican with a strong anti-war sentiment and lot of libertarian stands on many issues. It seems he draws a lot of support from the 911 conspiracy nut bag crowd. You know the type of person who listens to that jackhole Alex Jones on a regular basis. I understand his people are trying to get the most bang for the buck and often resorting to some questionable tactics. They love to send out email spam and thread jack bulletin boards at every opportunity (even in non political discussions). The "Don't taze me bro" guy was a Ron Paul supporter. They show up at other candidate's rallies and start shouting nonsense. What an annoying bunch of fuckers!! These tactics turnoff a lot of potentially receptive voters (myself included).

Am I the only person who feels this way?

[Simulcra]

Pat,

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I agree with you. I think that without question he has his finger on the pulse of the real problems with this country and the direction it is sending us (devalued dollar, war, federal beurocracy, the IRS, etc.). So no matter how many kooks he has in his camp, by far he is not kook and what he is running his campaign on is not kooky. If you like him or anybody else for that matter, don't let their supporters discourage you from casting your vote for that person.

I'm fairly certain that his chances of getting the nomination are slim and none and slim left town. If he does not run as an independent, I guess I'm SOL because all the Republican candidates just scare the hell out of me and the Democratic candidates scare me as well. I might be swayed to Obama should he win, but that would take an awful lot of convincing for me to do that.

No matter what it is very interesting to watch.

[Vogateer]

Phrased a little differently: "Does Ron Paul have some of the most annoying supporters ever?" I'd have to agree with you. He's taken a couple of stances that really get these people fired up. The 9/11 thing is one of them that we already went over in another thread, but Ron Paul wants an investigation because he believes people in government aren't doing their job, but 9/11 nuts seem to think he's a fellow conspiracy theorist, when he's not. But yeah, a lot of Ron Paul's supporters aren't doing him any favors.

It's sad, since a lot of people have used that against him to drown out some of his central messages that truly resonate with people, such views as Simulcra already pointed out. Even though I disagree with Ron Paul on some views, I think if you're still voting based on the views candidates are espousing, you're missing the boat. Candidates will continue to shift their message to whatever stance gets them elected, and then never follow up on it and not stand for anything once they get in until we are willing to vote for someone who actually stands for something, even if you disagree with that candidate on several issues.

Once we've started to vote in candidates who are actually principled, and essentially make that a prerequisite, then you can start to vote based on candidates' positions.

[Vogateer]

I'm fairly certain that his chances of getting the nomination are slim and none and slim left town. If he does not run as an independent, I guess I'm SOL because all the Republican candidates just scare the hell out of me and the Democratic candidates scare me as well. I might be swayed to Obama should he win, but that would take an awful lot of convincing for me to do that.

No matter what it is very interesting to watch.

It is nice to see some energy in politics. I can't remember the last time people were this into an election.

I agree with you, the Republican and Democratic "top-tier" candidates all make me shudder. Obama could prove himself to be different and principled, though his principles are exactly those I don't want in government, after all he wants to expand government, and his rhetoric sounds very much like he wants all kinds of government interference.

[Simulcra]

I agree with you, the Republican and Democratic "top-tier" candidates all make me shudder. Obama could prove himself to be different and principled, though his principles are exactly those I don't want in government, after all he wants to expand government, and his rhetoric sounds very much like he wants all kinds of government interference.

Yup. That's why I say it would take an awful lot of convincing for me to pull the leaver. The only reason I can come up with to vote for him now is because he is black. I'm a white guy (big shocker there) and I think it would be refreshing and psychologically good for the country to see a black guy in da House.

[Vogateer]

Then there's always the pitfall of "strategic voting."

Now that there's a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled White House, spending is finally slowing down. If we get a Democrat in the White House with a Democrat-controlled Congress, guess what happens with spending. Same thing we saw during the first 6 years of the George W. Bush presidency: spend, spend, spend.

[Simulcra]

Oh and along the lines of ever expanding government. Obama coming out and saying he wants to expand government is a bit more honest than all the other who say the opposite but when they get in they do expand, expand, expand, tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend. At least there would be no let down as far as that's concerned.

[greggh]

It's not that difficult to figure out why these nutbags like the truthers and white nationalists are so fond of Paul. Your words, and the words that go out under your name, are your reputation. Apparently they have been reading his newsletters over the years more closely than the rest of us.

From the TNR article...

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."

[Simulcra]

eh. I give the same amount of weight to The New Republic as I do The National Review = none.

[greggh]

eh. I give the same amount of weight to The New Republic as I do The National Review = none.

The New Republic article for the most part just quotes the Ron Paul Newsletters. Give the weight to the words as quoted above under Ron Paul's name. And in the particular quotes I cited above it sure seems that it's Ron Paul doing the writing.

[Brian]

In this thread we could easily replace "Ron Paul" with "Lyndon Larouche" and, amazingly, it would all fit just as well.

[Vogateer]

And in the particular quotes I cited above it sure seems that it's Ron Paul doing the writing.

How do you figure that? Neither of those quotes are anything like Ron Paul's writing or speaking style. Every reasonable journalist I can find states the same, including those in articles you have referenced. Ron Paul has admitted his mistake, stated his own position as counter to those in the newsletter, which sounds reasonable, since nobody can apparently find anything similar to these views or styles written by Ron Paul himself. Honestly, the mistake is in the past, it's already hurt his reputation, so what more can the man do? You can still hold that bad decision making against him, but there's no reason to keep stating these views as though they are Ron Paul's own.

It seems blatantly obvious to me that the New Republic article (a very misleading article, as he knew the articles were likely not written by Paul, but acted like Paul wrote them himself for the rest of the article) was timed in such a way to hurt Ron Paul in New Hampshire, which seemed like a good state for him, without giving him time to undo the damage. I've seen a lot of that in politics recently, usually from campaigns, but it's no surprise to see such practices in news outlets like the New Republic.

You give the impression that you're not interested in the truth (as your previous lack of research into the articles shows), and are just out to smear the man every chance you get. With all the politicians out there who are as corrupt as one can find, I find it wholly unreasonable to select Ron Paul for such character attacks.

[greggh]

Why should I, or anyone else, believe a man that takes years to address things written in his name, and only after these things are pointed out by others? It strains credulity. Would Ron Paul supporters be allowing any other person the benefit of such a convenient excuse in the same circumstances?

[Vogateer]

It's not merely a convenient excuse, it's the explanation that makes the most sense. You and everyone else should believe him because he's followed through with his campaign promises with a voting record to match. That's a rarity, particularly in politics. The mistakes he's made in the past appear to be honest ones and anomalies in an otherwise great record, and do not constitute this grand history of misconduct that you make it out to be.

[Wally Balljacker]

Ron Paul is done anyway. He placed 5th with only 8% in one of the most libertarian states in the country. If he can't win New Hampshire, he doesn't stand a chance in rest of the primaries. Not to mention he's way too fringe for the majority of the American people. This country wants universal health care, stronger public education, an end to global warming, etc. I have yet to see Ron Paul address any of those issues.