I will remind you (for what it is worth), that Ron Pauls denials only came after he was caught on video feeding the 9/11 conspiracy delusions of one his supporters by saying the 9/11 conspiracy “should be looked into”.
He may not believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, but he was certainly willing to pander to those that do... at least until he was caught doing it. That in itself disqualifies him as presidential material.
Also, for “strict constitutionalist” there are some significant gaps in his knowledge of the Constitution. For example, he says the Iraq war was illegal. It is not.
But I do like his stand on the 2d amendment, fiscal responsibility, and size of govt.
If he knew the first thing about foreign policy or the true nature and aims of islamo-fascism, I would consider voting for him.
But he doesn’t.
Do you have a link to that video? It would be interesting to see.
Well since you're into McCarthyite litmus tests....a much stronger case can be made that a presidential candidate should be "disqualified" for "pandering" to those who would violate the Constitution by supporting an undeclared, preemptive, Wilsonian war. Then again, since you like litmus tests so much, why not "disqualify" a candidate who openly lobbies to restore a murdering thug named Aristide to power? Let me guess, you think that is "different?"