I suppose I could, but it would be a waste of time since I've probably posted hundreds of articles since early July and found only this on on Paul, one on Tommy Thompson's brother who may support Paul, and one on Paul Craig Roberts. If I count all three, that's only 1% or so, which doesn't sustain your charge of
I regognize Paul's supporters consider 1% correct definitive proof of anything.
I do post on the threads, and I understand Paul supporters don't like that, they're intolerant of criticism.
Comical comes to mind, but it's important this nuttiness not be associated with the Republican Party....Again, are you claiming that Paul's "nutty" platform is -- unamerican?; - unconstitutional?
That seems clear to me. I don't think he's un-American or un-Constitutional, I think he's comical.
He runs a campaign of sound bites with little or nothing in the way of real world, concrete legislative solutions to any of the issues he raises. Solutions as in practical solutions, ones that could actually implemented in the real world. And his supporters run around as though he’s about to be King.
And yes, I think his nuttiness needs to be separated from the Republican Party. He gets support from a number of distasteful groups, and that’s not something the Republican Party needs to be associated with.
So the nutiness that needs to be separated from the Republican party is the candidate who favors closing our borders, repealing Roe v. Wade, and reducing our federal government to its constitutionally permitted functions? But the candidate who favors opening the borders, killing the unborn, putting firearms manufacturers out of business is okay? And the president who oversaw the largest expansion in the federal government in a generation and tried to legalize 30 million illegals is not nutty either?