That has to be some of the worst nonsense I’ve heard in a while. Molyneux’s beef is a lot more than “a Paul presidency would lead people to falsely blame libertarianism for negative things in the economy.”
Just listen to him rant. He all but directly states how he essentially resents Paul’s method/path of spreading liberty, and by extension, the Congressman’s success.
Again here’s just one example. I don’t see how anyone can deny the man’s narcissism, and, given the way he attacks Paul (i.e. mostly with straw men), it’s almost just as obvious that his issues are much deeper than “he’ll cause people to blame libertarianism for a recession!”
I mean, it’s nice to have an FdR cult member come to the forum to defend the dear leader, but I really don’t think there’s any room to stand on on this one. I’d stick to something a little less obvious, where you have more wiggle room and plausible deniability.