Ron Paul Campaign Contributions and the Strawman Fallacy

Some people say that the media disinformation campaign against Ron Paul is heating up. It's moving from mainstream media sources to the Internet. A few carefully crafted and hyped stories can do a lot of damage.

Some sources say that the "hate level" against Ron Paul on the Internet is rising. It's impressive how well a few carefully planted stories spread.

The current anti-Ron Paul story that's spreading is "Ron Paul accepted a $500 campaign contribution from a white supremacist." Ron Paul's "small Federal government" philosophy resonates well with the white supremacist crowd, who correctly point out that the Federal government is their enemy.

Various groups are pressuring Ron Paul to return this contribution or donate it to charity. Ron Paul correctly pointed out that filtering your campaign donors based on their personal views gets kind of silly. Did this contribution alter Ron Paul's philosophy? No. In that case, it's not harmful.

This is a variation of the Strawman Fallacy. Someone wants to support Ron Paul for President, which is a good idea. They also are a white supremacist, which is a bad idea. The two viewpoints are independent. Just because a white supremacist decided to contribute to Ron Paul's campaign does not mean that Ron Paul is now a white supremacist.

Other candidates receive MASSIVE donations from large corporations and their management. How come there's no outcry against that? How come there isn't pressure against other candidates to give back those donations?

It seems that a double standard is being applied to Ron Paul that isn't being applied to other candidates. Why is a $500 campaign contribution from a white supremacist a big deal, but a $300k contribution from a large corporation is not a big deal?

Ron Paul is the only candidate for President that's worth discussing. However, from a true anarchist or agorist perspective, it could be a disaster if Ron Paul were elected President. He might succeed in bringing legitimacy back to the Federal Government, which is the *LAST* thing a true anarchist wants to see. He might be able to postpone the inevitable collapse of the current economic and political system.

If you're a true anarchist, you want the WORST possible candidate to be elected. You want a President who will maximize the amount of credibility the government loses. I'm undecided. It would be nice if Ron Paul were elected President. On the other hand, people might be better off if someone totally unqualified were elected President. By "totally unqualified", I mean "All candidates other than Ron Paul."