I know it's bad to say something like "Ron Paul Supporters are utter morons", and I actually know at least two that are good people, they aren't stupid, but I'm going to discuss the broader group here. The ones in the media, the ones who annoy the hell out of everyone, the ones who -- if I didn't know better -- you'd think are actually trying to keep him from getting elected.

First and foremost, I honestly do not agree with what most things Ron Paul says, and also the fact this is the same guy who says that most criminals are black (95% according to him), among other things, but I haven't been able to personally verify that they are true, so I won't discuss them. I'd rather not say something about someone if it isn't true.

I remember first hearing about Ron Paul sometime last year, probably around summer, though I honestly can't remember exactly when it was. The first thing I noticed is how the supporters of his, the ones in the public eye, were far more fervent the your average Islamic Fundamentalist, taking everything he says as if it is the word of God. Not to mention spamming both the internet and the real world with posters, fliers, and other garbage. 

I guess, though, this isn't much different than what has happened in the post, the strangest part is his audience. Most people seem to think his support is massive, but it really isn't. When you have a lot of young people on the Internet, who aren't even old enough to vote, posting on forum on top of fucking forum about how this man wants to switch back to the gold standard, wants to legalize drugs, and wants to get out of Iraq.

Generally, most supporters of him only have one or two reasons to support him, and don't agree with any thing else. The oddest thing is how some will just blindly accept whatever he says, so long as they can get their drugs. It's like buying a car so long as it is blue, who cares if it runs, whether or not all the wheels are on it, it's blue, and that's all that matters.

This comes with the egotistical nature of young people today, and thinking that not only is every and truthful and honest as them, but they are victims. This is an actual question for Ron Paul's Campaign posted on Slashdot:

I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me. 

HOLY SHIT A FORMER COLLEGE STUDENT THAT DOES DRUGS, OMFG SO RARE! 

That aside, okay, so this guy is Mr. Wonderful and does nothing wrong -- hell you probably couldn't find more honest people in Washington. Too bad he's a fucking moron. What kind of self-centered fucktard actually believes that when something is illegal, and they aren't a bad person when doing it, that automatically everyone else is in the same position.

OH SURE, NO BODY WHO DOES DRUGS EVER DOES ANYTHING WRONG, THEY'RE JUST DECLARING WAR ON ME, BECAUSE I'M A HIGH CLASS, WHITE, COLLEGE GRADUATE.

Yeah, you heard it here first. All drug users are just meaninglessly being declared war on for the sake of doing it. Or maybe you would believe that it's to keep an industry quiet, you know because hemp is a cure of oil shortages, cotton, paper, cancer, and airplanes falling out of the sky. 

Too bad Ron Paul never really said drugs should be legalized, instead he says it should be left up to states. It's funny that druggies think that everyone sympathizes with them, and of course everyone secretly does it, so given the chance could easily legalize it in their states. Oh wait, too bad this is a Republic, not a democracy, they can't do jack shit.

I think the issue here is that most people who support Ron Paul fall into three categories, 1) Morons, who actually believe the dumb shit promoted by Ron Paul, his supporters, and also the Libertarian Party. 2) People who only care about drugs, it doesn't matter who is getting elected, could be Genghis Khan, but who cares AS LONG AS I HAVE MY DRUGS, 3) People who don't know any better. 4) This doesn't count as one in the list, but this is the safety zone for the extremely small percentage of those who don't fit into the first three.

Right now Ron Paul is in dead last place in the Republican Primary, he is simply not going to become the nominee. I wouldn't be surprised if he moves to the independent ticket. I imagine he'll get about as many votes as Michael Badnarik did 4 years ago, which is around 1%. Maybe, due to the Internet spamming that is going on, he might get 2%, but I wouldn't aim that high, mostly because a lot of his supporters are underage, foreigners, or simply just don't/won't vote.

As for earlier when I mentioned how it seems like they don't want to get him elected. When you act like a candidate is a god, most people around you think you're crazy and stupid. Not to mention when you throw snow balls at other candidates and news casters, and harass many other people. Do you honestly think this will help you get your candidate elected?

There are so many things I could get into, talking about his economics, and his politics in general. But it doesn't really matter, because there's no chance in hell he's getting elected.

Ron Paul isn't a Republican, he's a Libertarian, and just because there's all of a sudden a storm against John McCain, doesn't mean Republicans will flock to Ron Paul. He makes people uncomfortable, not only because of his politics, but because he looks like a lizard, and sounds like he's a 12 year old girl.

Here's some another Slashdot posts, but ones I agree with:

How about the "Ron Paul stands just about as much chance of being elected as you do" posts? It doesn't really matter if the person reading is 15, an atheist, Chinese, or a member of Al Qaeda; the statement is still accurate.

The best thing about Ron Paul this year is how he can be the ultimate form of humiliation. Pundits and pollsters were all over Rudy "9/11" Giuliani before the primaries started. Some of them were practically writing his victory speeches before the first vote had been cast. Then people started voting and he got less votes than even Ron Paul.

As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard". He's also protectionist as hell. He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok, privatize Social Security). It's one thing to be against "wasteful government spending", but when it ends up involving people dying on the street (social programs), it's a lot harder to stomach. From a purely economic point of view it is probably better to let the mentally ill and unemployable just die on the street instead of subsidizing them for the rest of their life, but that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world.

------

Oh geez, someone has been drinking the Gold Standard Kool-Aid. Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression. It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold. Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul. The Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.

He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.

States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues that, while probably correct in the long term, are politically unpopular today.