Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

[John_James]

@Autolykos

No, you didn’t say that literally. I don’t think you had to. What you did literally say implies what I attributed to your position - that “They” wouldn’t have thought it worth it to cause the plane that Paul Wellstone was travelling in to crash. Your reasoning seems to be as follows: since “They” apparently don’t think it worth it to eliminate Ron Paul, “They” must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone. If I’m mistaken here, then feel free to clarify.

Sure. Again, I said your story doesn’t add up. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m saying it doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying “‘They’ must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone”…obviously the guy’s dead, and if your conspiracy theory is true, then someone did find it worth it to kill him. What I’m saying is that if that’s the case, how was it not worth it to kill Ron Paul a long time ago?

Feel free to offer your explanation.

If you want me to agree with you that I am “confused”, you’ll have to do better than that.

There you go again. You really do say stuff like this quite often. Where did you ever get this idea that I was ever trying to convince you of anything? Is it some kind of self-esteem reinforcement bias or something?..related to your delusion that everyone is out to try to intimidate you? You have a need to feel important and don’t get enough attention elsewhere (and apparently in the forum as well) so you just assume (or pretend) that people care what you believe and have some interest in trying to convince you of things?

I honestly don’t get it.

In any case, you’re making conversation to what end, exactly?

Pleasure.

That’s not exactly what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that “They” have gone after bigger targets in the past and gotten away with it. The circumstances are certainly different now, but I think there may come a time where “They” nevertheless think it’s worth it to employ more extreme measures.

…how is that different than what I said?

@Autolykos

I’m sorry but I don’t see how this is analogous.

Check the sentence right below it.

… Such as?

Such as everything that makes 2012 different from 1963, and everything that makes Ron Paul different from John F. Kennedy.

My understanding is that there wasn’t nearly as much of a protest movement or counterculture in 1963 as opposed to the later part of the decade (e.g. 1968).

What does that have to do with anything?

It was sufficiently secret that the vast majority of the German people didn’t find out what was going on until after the war.

Vast majority, huh?

@Autolykos

You never have to say anything to me.

Aww. I didn’t realize you felt so left out. I say things to you quite often. I didn’t realize your appetite was so insatiable.

But I don’t understand why you find the notion so ridiculous as to just laugh it off.

Because they’re two completely different things.

I did say that one advantage that Ron Paul supporters have over people who supported JFK was that the former have much less trust in “authority” than the latter seemed to have had at the time - which, as far as I can tell, is essentially the point you’re making above.

If all you get from “wouldn’t be satisfied with any official story given for his death, would call it an assassination from day 1, would do everything in his power to uncover the truth, and would be ever-more motivated to investigate and shine a light on Bilderberg/TriLat/CFR like never before and create havoc for them, and their operations” is “they have much less trust in authority that people who supported JFK”, then you’re either dishonest, or more dense than I thought.