"I believe that the enormous support Ron Paul gets on the internet is way out of proportion with what the masses support..."
Just as an observer of these threads the past few days, the prevailing thought in my mind is that I do not understand why your sentiment seems so far out of proportion to the situation. The situation as I see it is that you have found reason to be vehemently opposed to the idea of support for Ron Paul as a presidential candidate who by necessity has been campaigning without the benefit of having either of the two predominant banners - Republican or Democrat, hanging over his name and candidacy. In the US, it is either Republicans or Democrats that are the ticket ... that's the ticket, no other party has been granted this ticket for many decades ongoing.
The part in this that really puts your opposition way out of proportion is as follows. A simple fact is that the person placed into the White House has the benefit of an unbroken chain over the last many decades ongoing of having the formal banner of either Democrat or a Republican hanging over their actions, beginning with their candidacy, and continuing on with what they do after they achieve the Oval Office. Look at the track record that has followed in the wake of this unbroken chain. This track record includes a lot of ugly wreckage that has been put down equally and systematically under the watch of the parties of Democrats and Republicans alike serving out of the White House. Note the absence of any other formal parties as alternatives attached to this wreckage. Some of this wreckage is the very kind that you have been speaking out the most strongly against. On the one hand, I commend you for consistently speaking out against this kind of patented injustice[s] foisted upon select demographics of people. On the other hand, I just cannot fathom how it is that you figured out a way to believe that placing another Democrat or Republican in office is going to result in a better solution than an off-brand party for the same kinds of wreckage Republicans and Democrats have been producing down through these years. Meanwhile, look back over this same chain of years and you will not find one - count them, none, in the way candidates attached to off-brand parties. By "off brand", I mean any party not officially and formally attached under the formal banners of Democrats and Republicans.
As far as I can tell, outside these two prevailing parties, there are no other parties to speak of. "to speak of" means that there has been no other parties occupying the White House.... yeah, once a given Democrat or Republican achieves the White House, it is easy for supporters and detractors to wax on and on about how a given Republican or Democrat "....favors this or that flavor of libertarian this, independent that, has leanings that way and the other way, yada yada yada", but that does not count as far as formal parties go. As far as formal parties go, there are 2 and only 2. As such, Ron Paul does not have an official, established party that his campaign is formally attached to. Even if it is conceded that he is attached to one, whichever one it is, it is not either of the two that have held sway in the White House for many decades unending. This is why your scathing opinion of Paul seems to be treating him as though he IS the same as somebody attached to either of these 2 formal parties, 2 parties that DO deserve plenty of scorn... your scorn, my scorn, the scorn of nearly everybody. Shouldn't an off-brand party at least be entitled to have a candidate hold the office at least once, just once, before attributing to them the same kind of scorn that Republicans and Democrats have earned over the years .... but always seem to find a way to avoid nonetheless?
Would you agree that what the masses support is generally what the monopoly media instructs and or guides them to support?
The present aura of the masses is a great example of how and why there needs to be limits on the use of democratic principles. Majority rule has it's place as long as people realize what this place is and as long as people realize this place is not to dogmatically rely on the trotting out of majority rule every times it serves the interests of a given majority. Also bear in mind that in the present age, the average person does not know a given majority exists until the media first informs them. In other words, manufacturing majorities is largely one of the reasons that broadcast media was invented in the first place. Take away the monopoly media apparatus and in one fell swoop you just eliminated the primary means in which select people have been producing, on demand, majorities" the past 75 years. "what the masses support" has become so convoluted over the years as to be rendered irrelevant at best in the context of election issues, and an unwieldy mess at worst in the context of the herd led in mass from their noses by the media apparatus. Try to keep in mind that there are very good chances that the average person among the masses does not know how to discern the distinct & critical difference between "democratic principles" and "democracy". To the average among the herd, they have been trained to perceive these as synonymous, interchangeable terms. It would be one thing if the average among the masses could be relied on to actually make use of their own smarts every now and then, but that prospect seemed to go out the window pretty much the day after the monopoly media apparatus advanced their capability to include electronic-broadcast..... POOF!, mass opinions produced for previously non-existent issues, produced at the speed of tv.