The problem with many Ron Paul supporters

[Lunar]

the second page of comments is more intelligent than the first

[Lunar]

As someone in the comments section said, I wonder what Ron Paul would say about the Constitutional authority for him to place Houston shrimp advertising in an appropriations bill.

[Lunar]

They refuse to admit his faults, and criticize those who bring them up: http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/136

Which is different than your typical W and Obama supporters in what way?

I'm pretty sure if the DailyKos called out Obama on a broken, liberal, campaign promise, that people wouldn't quit the site.  In fact, they routinely criticize liberal politicians for not being liberal enough whenever I pay them a visit to observe what the left-wing blogosphere is complaining about these days.

here's a case where Paul was accused of not being conservative/libertarian enough

[Lunar]

That's true.  Good point.  I was amused by the "you've just lost a member" comments most of all.  But yeah, I dare say, I've even seen irrational crazy partisans on this very site.

[Lunar]

On the other hand, every reasonably successful third party (which Ron Paul essentially was) movement will depend on some sort of strong cult of personality.

[Lunar]

I was like 5-6 year olds during the first Perot.  But I suspect that Perot, while surrounding himself with whom he was rather than his ideology, was more of a product of:
1) insane amounts of personal money rather than a successful grassroots marketing strategy
and 2) the way things were before the internet. 


I suspect any successful third party/ideology candidate nowadays, especially one who relies on the internet, will have to base a movement on personality.  I doubt a Perot-like candidate (with the same personality) would have done nearly as well in 2012 as he did in 1992.  Any counter-partisan movement inherently requires a magnitude of charisma behind it, otherwise there'd be nothing to distinguish it from previous years!

[Lunar]

The idea that libertarianism in any way promotes life, liberty or property is frankly absurd and is why no one takes you (plural) seriously.

Any serious critique of the libertarian philosophy says that hard-core libertarians take those three nouns TOO seriously to the point that it infringes on those three nouns.

To play the devil's advocate to avoid getting to passionate:

Say, guns, according to some, take away more life/liberty than the liberty they grant.  But to say that it doesn't "promote" it, even in that situation is ridic.

[Lunar]

it's not like healthcare has evolved at all since then