Why are Ron Paul Detractors so Frightened? (American Chronicle)

American Chronicle ^ | 9/26/07 | Szandor Blestman

[Constantine XIII]

I don’t think it’s “frightened” so much as “annoyed.”

They have a way of trying to take over whatever is happening on any website that will let them. :p

[MNJohnnie]

Oh you want to play?

Simple challenge to you. With NO slogans. NO demagogary. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything.

Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together bascially screaming bile at everyone and everything.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive retoric. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.

[Constantine XIII]

“They” being Paul supporters.

[mnehring]

Thank you very much because you unknowingly are proving something I’ve said many times, Ron Paul is a political Rorschach test. People actually want to vote for themselves and they are projecting that on Paul.

Your comment is a perfect example of that, specifically in using the Unitary Executive branch principle to implement change. This is exactly what you want, and I agree in this approach.

The problem, however, is that Ron Paul doesn’t agree with you. He has spoken out often and loud against the Unitary Executive branch. He calls it Presidential dictatorship.

This again goes back to what someone else said, Paul is long on platitudes, short on specific plans. By doing this, we are, in our own minds, filling in the ‘how’ and all the details he leaves out and falsely attributing that to a specific of how Paul would do that.

This is why Paul seems to generate such an emotional response, because people have had to invest themselves into his plans in order to fill in the gaps. Instead of debating for Paul, you are subconsciously debating for yourself.

[LexBaird]

Nobody I have seen who supports either Fred Thompson or Ron Paul has failed to address criticism of their candidates.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The vast majority of replies are one liner "Fear the Fred" type comments. Most of the rest are cut-n-paste advocacy rips from some site or another, reams of text that doesn't address the point. Very, very few are cogent, crafted responses to direct questions or on point rebuttals.

OTOH, I am talking about real, valid criticisms, not the spin attacks such as you refer to. Those are also mostly cut-n-paste hatchet jobs.

Nevertheless, the bulk of the postings about every (R) candidate on FR consists of dialog at the "My ol' man can beat up your ol' man" level of discourse. The same tired, old attack graphics, the same out-of-context quotes, the same juvenile ad hominums, thread after thread.

[Drango]

Paul makes me think of the blue man, nut job, losertarian.. do they have any normal people in their party? Any?

[the808bass]

I am not a part of this and I doubt the central HQ, who really have very little control over the movement are involved.

Your little graph is puzzling for a number of reasons. 1) It says it is "Since Fred Thompson entered the race on March 10th, 2007". Um...no. 2) It says that every candidate starts at 1, but it is a measure of a change of "momentum." So if I start at .002 and go to 1, then I've got some terrific momentum and I'm still completely irrelevant.

[LexBaird]

This again goes back to what someone else said, Paul is long on platitudes, short on specific plans. By doing this, we are, in our own minds, filling in the ‘how’ and all the details he leaves out and falsely attributing that to a specific of how Paul would do that.

Paul isn't the only candidate in the race whose support seems to mostly come from projection. But, it does no good to warn them. They will insist on hero worship, and then shriek the loudest when they get "betrayed" because the Chosen One didn't do what they imagined he would.

For example, look at Bush. He made no secret of his immigration policy in 2000, yet some conservatives were totally shocked to find out that he didn't see the Mexican Exodus the same as they did.

Or take Arnold Schwartzenegger. They thought he was actually promising a policy when he made vague statements about "blowing up boxes". They thought he meant to change things when he promised a "top to bottom audit" of the state government. They heard what they wanted to hear.

[the808bass]

A candidate like that would end all foreign aid gravy trains.

Quick, what percentage of the 2006 Federal Budget was consumed by "foreign aid gravy trains?" Yeah. You don't know. But it's a good bumper sticker.

[the808bass]

Almost every post on FR that disagrees with Paul and his supporters ignores the substance of what he stands for.

And almost every post in favor of Ronnie says that Ronnie is the only candidate for the Constitution with a copy/paste from the Ron Paul website. That's the level of most public debate these days. No different on this issue.

[mnehring]

Yes they do have ‘normal’ people supporting him, you see a lot here. They are people who are so desperate for a return to conservative values they will latch on to anyone who says it a lot. See my previous post about the political Rorschach test. You know the good folks because they are the ones that fill in the details of ‘how’ Ron would do something- even though he has never said any of the details they are saying. They are projecting their own desires.

[hinckley buzzard]

She took up a lot of space to say nothing. Afraid???? He’s a joke!

Dittoes. Nobody is "frightened" by Ron Paul. He's just a big target, easy and fun to trash.

[the808bass]

Case in point - a claim has been made here on FR, with the authority of some blog that no one has ever heard of, that a neo-Nazi organization supports Paul.

Not quite accurate. In fact, if you visit www.stormfront.com, you'll see plenty of pro-Ron Paul stuff for yourself and you won't have to depend on a blog. I know this won't give you pause, but maybe some other people. And I have not seen anyone say all RP supporters are neo-Nazis. I have seen them say that it is more than a bit bothersome to see neo-Nazis so excited about supporting him as a candidate.

[DesScorp]

“Refreshing to be able to enter a voting booth and vote for someone because you believe in their principles instead of voting simply because you don’t want the ‘other guy’ to get in office”

You’ve always had this choice. There are always third parties.

But theres’ also a damn good reason most people don’t vote for them.

[hschliemann]

You sound like a parlor room psychologist.Perhaps you should consider your own projections;

Thank you very much because you unknowingly are proving something I’ve said many times...

...and

People actually want to vote for themselves and they are projecting that on Paul.

???Paul wants to vote for me?Paul wants to vote for himself.What a bunch of gobbbledy-gook.It only makes sense to vote for that person that most closely resembles your own personal views.Calling it projection is a psychologist looking for work.

The problem, however, is that Ron Paul doesn’t agree with you. He has spoken out often and loud against the Unitary Executive branch. He calls it Presidential dictatorship.

But I doubt very much if he believes that the president doesn't run the executive branch.Whether or not he believes in the Unitary Executive does not make that doctrine so.He may not believe in executive orders either,but it may well be that they would be required to rescind those which have already been issued.

You asked me what constitutional powers exist which give the president the authority to implement his agenda.It is very much the case that he believes there was no authority in the first place to create these agencies.

And in my answer to your first post,you know,the questions to which you NEVER received any answers,I explained that you can ask your question about ANY of the other candidates running.I can imagine,every time Romney or some other flunky nominated by the GOP expounds on an idea,to ask him "okay,you beleive that,but what differencce does it make,what can you as president do about it?

Paul is long on platitudes, short on specific plans.

The repeal of the income tax,removal of the UN,abolishment of the IRS and FRB.These are platitudes?These are not specific plans?.Oh no not for you,you demand to know before the election,exactly what it is he's going to do the morning of Jan.21,2009.According to these criteria,no-one is suited for the job.Whether the president has the power,if only the power of the bully-pulpit,is a question up for much debate.But failing to find fault with these "platitudes",you immediatley go into argument b,"How will he do it?"

This is why Paul seems to generate such an emotional response, because people have had to invest themselves into his plans in order to fill in the gaps.

You're a riot.Yes it's the Paul supporters who are emotional.How perceptive of you.You can always tell them by their bitter invectives.

Instead of debating for Paul, you are subconsciously debating for yourself.

Right. Debating for yourself.Also known as thinking

You asked for specific methods.I pointed out two.One you answered unconvincingly and the other you ignored.Then you posited that perhaps Paul supporters are lost in some kind of subconscious limbo.

But go ahead,take your favorite candidate and pose the same ridiculous burdens on them.How would they do ANYTHING on which they campaign.We do have a three part government,the president is not omnipotent.This applies to ALL the candidates.To find this as a major fault with the campaign of one is not much fault at all.In fact it speaks well of him that the only thing you can really find fault with something for which no candidate can answer..

[MNJohnnie]

Still waiting for those crying for civility to respond.

Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything.

Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.

[BobS]

"Still, some Ron Paul detractors do talk about the issues. "

Not getting us killed is an important issue.

[hschliemann]

Quick, what percentage of the 2006 Federal Budget was consumed by "foreign aid gravy trains?" Yeah. You don't know. But it's a good bumper sticker.

It's not a matter of how much,but rather why are Americans being taxed even a penny to send overseas to some God-forsaken country that probably bad-mouths us and votes against our interests in the UN?Do you have any principles at all,or are you just concerned about your pocketbook(not that that's not something with which to be concerned,but in this matter it should certainly be secondary).

This is a free country.If you want to send your money to Zimbabwe,Croatia,or even Iraq,you have a right to do so.Give till it hurts,as you'll be making up for me.

[BobS]

"Still, some Ron Paul detractors do talk about the issues. "

Not getting us killed is an important issue.

[hschliemann]

Tell me HOW Paul would do anything.

Why don't you break the ice and tell us all how ANY candidate would do anything.You can't find fault with his core positions,with the possible exception of his position the War on Terror,so you put up this ridiculous argument.You make it sound as though any of the other candidates would have powers to implement their policies that would not be available to Paul were he elected.