Do Ron Paul supporters remind you of communists?

[StateBoiler]

Yes. Not ideologically of course, and not communists NOW obviously, but look back to the 60s in countries such as France. Watch The Dreamers and take note of the twins especially the guy who reads from Mao's little red book.

Essentially, Paul's supporters are sort of a political cult similar to some communist parties, even if they are ideologically diametrically opposed.

Is it against the law to support a candidate?

I'm waiting for your next thread: is Barack Obama representative of black people?

[StateBoiler]

Is it against the law to support a candidate?

No, of course not. Neither is it against the law to belong to a political cult. But many Ron Paul supporters are pretty much in the latter.

And what, pray tell, is a political cult?

[StateBoiler]

So this is your line of thinking:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[StateBoiler]

So this is your line of thinking:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er, no. Not at all. Rather it's more when these libertarians organize and begin acting like Ron Paul supporters do.

https://uselectionatlas.org/MOCK/PRESIDENT/2008R/mock.php

And go look at his InTrade numbers...

Sure this is relatively mild stuff, but it's a microcosm of a bigger picture, a belief among some Ron Paul supporters seeing him as some sort of messiah and that they must do everything to further the cause of Paul.

Why do you give a s*** about something called an InTrade number? Does that win elections? Does it have any relevance to the overall American political landscape? No.

I have zero belief that Paul will win a primary. He has far outperformed my expectations though based on his fundraising, supporters, and poll numbers, and with that I am content because there is hope for the future for my beliefs. Maybe these people will become the Democratic and Republican representatives of tomorrow.

But when you look at the s*** each party has up for their nomination, there's not much else outside of Paul for a person that believes in the virtues of small government. George W. Bush has reformed the Republican party into this Keynesian big-government wonderland where increasingly more decisions are centralized into the executive, the legislative branch has lost a significant amount of power, and spending and new government programs are the solution to all problems. The Democrats have completely lost the plot and look at all the spending Bush approved as "not enough".

So who am I supposed to support? Neither party's establishment represents me.

[StateBoiler]

Well then you aren't one of the cult-like Paul supporters.

But they still are regardless out there. The InTrade numbers are proof of this, as it shows there are many people willing to throw their money away betting on him. Maybe your area isn't full of the folks hanging endless amounts of Ron Paul Revolution signs out in public areas that get removed in a day, but mine sure is.

I live in a majority-black area.

I will admit that some Paul supporters need to become more rational in their expectations. However, it's a good thing that these people with passionate support exist, cause in primaries and caucuses with 10% turnout, they have a larger voice. The larger the voice, the more delegates. The more the delegates, the more say in the party platform and the eventual nominee's policies.

[StateBoiler]

You are not the worst of those types, but you still spout phrases such as "limited government" as if they were some unlimited virtue, ignoring the inherent problems of such a belief.

What's the inherent problems in such a belief? The larger government is, the less it does and the less effective it becomes. The Department of Homeland Security (a needless extra level of bureaucracy) after Hurricane Katrina represents that point. Time after time that has been shown true.

Then you have organizations that serve a purpose for which there is nothing to do. Like the Department of Education. The Department of Education does not educate anyone. It never has and it never will. All education is under the jurisdiction of state governments. So what does all that money for the Department of "Education" do if it does not educate anyone? Just pay bureaucrats pretty well?

[StateBoiler]

Gully, if you want to have an argument on the "purpose of government", start it in the Political Debate forum. I, and most other Ron Paul supporters, believe that government's purpose should be narrower than it currently is. You are more than entitled to your own opinion on the purpose of government and thinking it should be larger. You'll never convince me you're right, and I'll never convince you I'm right, so there is no point to continue arguing.

But Ron Paul supporters believing in limited government does not make us communists. The reason he has a "narrative" as you call it is cause he has principles and he applies those principles to form his political beliefs. If that's wrong, taking principles to form political beliefs, than that is why as you stated, neither party over here has "moral legitimacy".

[StateBoiler]

No, the thing is that Paul is not a real leader for America.  He is a doctor from TX, what does he know about running the country other than his own beliefs.  Therefore it seems to me he just wants to push his crazy ideas(no matter how much people wish they would they will never work) on others.

That's rich.

Name me a single elected politician in Washington that does not want to push his or her ideas and beliefs on others.