Anyone else notice a positive correlation between CT's and Ron Paul supporters?

[Critical Thinker]

I was wondering if anyone has come across any studies that links conspiracy theorists to other factors? Just from my own observations of CTer's on Facebook, there seems to be a disproportionate number of Ron Paul supporters and also anti-Semites that are in the CT crowd. I wonder if there are other correlations between CTer's and things like rural/urban residents or from different parts of the country or other factors....

[Mattnik]

This is purely anecdotal.

All the people I know personally that are big into their conspiracy theories are heavy dope smokers, make no effort to engage with current affairs and never vote. I'm not saying any of these three things are bad, but the correlation is certainly there - at least out of the dozen or so people I have in mind. Some of these people know each other, others do not.

[lotek]

anecdote, but 100% yea.

[Oxymoron]

I was wondering if anyone has come across any studies that links conspiracy theorists to other factors? Just from my own observations of CTer's on Facebook, there seems to be a disproportionate number of Ron Paul supporters and also anti-Semites that are in the CT crowd. I wonder if there are other correlations between CTer's and things like rural/urban residents or from different parts of the country or other factors....

I would imagine there is, because a lot of CTers are anti American Foreign Policy... i.e. American Imperialism. As this is one of Ron Paul's main tenets, many CTers are likely to support him. I would, even though I do not support all his beliefs.

[Grieves]

I can't say I support Ron Paul (given I don't live there), but I dig the guy. Every now and then he seems to speak out as a genuine human being about significant issues that no one else would touch with a ten foot pole. A lot of the things he's said I think are batty as hell, but I like his occasional moments of defiant candor. A fair portion of his politics don't much appeal to me, though. Still, if your choice is Pepsi or Coke, might not be so terrible to try something new. Given how rampant the conservative government has run here in Canuck-town now that it's achieved a majority, there's been hints at efforts to see the Liberal party, the NDP(New Democrats, labor-party more or less), and the Green Party settling their differences and forming a single party to run against the conservatives. Even the Bloc de quebecois might get in on the action, and that would be a big deal (french-Canadian politics are complicated subject). I hope to hell it doesn't happen, as a two-party system doesn't make sense to me. It's too vulnerable to exploitation. Ron Paul probably isn't the guy for the job, but I really think the USA would benefit from freeing up its electorate to other opinions/perspectives, if only to turn the banal back-and-forthing that apparently costs billions of dollars into something like a conversation. I'm not a fan of the Conservative government by any stretch, and Harper gives me the willies

but I think I'd rather lose another election to the guy than see the national discourse become a rhythmic chant of 'Two men enter, one man leaves..!' One of the primary reasons Harper and the conservatives are doing as well as they are is a very coordinated media campaign emphasizing how much more stable and healthy the Canadian economy is compared to the USA. It's not a lie, but its certainly misleading, and aspects of it slip into downright falsehood, like the notion Canadian banks received absolutely no stimulus during the bank-bailouts abroad. Another reason Canada is so flush right now is the prized Alberta tar-sands, the project of the nation, with some really cute advertisements attached. Most of them feature scenic forest vistas with neat, tidy paths carved through them, an unassuming smoke-stack perhaps tidily tucked among the trees. Here's one appealing specifically to Americans

encouraging you to use your voice and your vote to support oil development in the North-American tar-sands. This is encouraging you, more specifically, to 'pressure' your legislation/administration into 'allowing' the Keystone XL pipeline to come running through your country, allowing the crude to be shipped out for further refining at the coast. It will lead to more jobs in the states, while the pipe is being built, for the people building it. That'll be that though, maintenance and monitoring of these things, though not nonexistent, is rather scant. In the meantime, it would give Canada's baby, the Tar Sands, free reign to grow and fuel that ever-essential and increasing power demand. The estimated area of the projects growth over the next decade or so could come to rival Texas in scope. It already covers a massive swath of what was once entirely livable land.

If the pipeline doesn't go through, there's going to be an economic shitstorm, as the value of all this harsh crude will drop exponentially, and the Tar-Sands project could rapidly turn into a source of debt rather than revenue. If it does go through, this already massive swath of greasy hell is going to grow and grow. Keep in mind there are similar operations 'starting up' in Dakota, and the scale of the work there already appears to be quite massive. This all effects America about as much as it does Canada in many respects, but it barely got a mention in the arduous months of pre-election debates and discussions in the States. There's a party participating in the general election who adamantly opposes the Tar-sands, even knowing what it could mean economically.

Also, the American electoral college is messed up.

says it all.

[Clock]

I can't say I support Ron Paul (given I don't live there), but I dig the guy. Every now and then he seems to speak out as a genuine human being about significant issues that no one else would touch with a ten foot pole. A lot of the things he's said I think are batty as hell, but I like his occasional moments of defiant candor. A fair portion of his politics don't much appeal to me, though. Still, if your choice is Pepsi or Coke, might not be so terrible to try something new. Given how rampant the conservative government has run here in Canuck-town now that it's achieved a majority, there's been hints at efforts to see the Liberal party, the NDP(New Democrats, labor-party more or less), and the Green Party settling their differences and forming a single party to run against the conservatives. Even the Bloc de quebecois might get in on the action, and that would be a big deal (french-Canadian politics are complicated subject). I hope to hell it doesn't happen, as a two-party system doesn't make sense to me. It's too vulnerable to exploitation. Ron Paul probably isn't the guy for the job, but I really think the USA would benefit from freeing up its electorate to other opinions/perspectives, if only to turn the banal back-and-forthing that apparently costs billions of dollars into something like a conversation. I'm not a fan of the Conservative government by any stretch, and Harper gives me the willies

but I think I'd rather lose another election to the guy than see the national discourse become a rhythmic chant of 'Two men enter, one man leaves..!' One of the primary reasons Harper and the conservatives are doing as well as they are is a very coordinated media campaign emphasizing how much more stable and healthy the Canadian economy is compared to the USA. It's not a lie, but its certainly misleading, and aspects of it slip into downright falsehood, like the notion Canadian banks received absolutely no stimulus during the bank-bailouts abroad. Another reason Canada is so flush right now is the prized Alberta tar-sands, the project of the nation, with some really cute advertisements attached. Most of them feature scenic forest vistas with neat, tidy paths carved through them, an unassuming smoke-stack perhaps tidily tucked among the trees. Here's one appealing specifically to Americans

encouraging you to use your voice and your vote to support oil development in the North-American tar-sands. This is encouraging you, more specifically, to 'pressure' your legislation/administration into 'allowing' the Keystone XL pipeline to come running through your country, allowing the crude to be shipped out for further refining at the coast. It will lead to more jobs in the states, while the pipe is being built, for the people building it. That'll be that though, maintenance and monitoring of these things, though not nonexistent, is rather scant. In the meantime, it would give Canada's baby, the Tar Sands, free reign to grow and fuel that ever-essential and increasing power demand. The estimated area of the projects growth over the next decade or so could come to rival Texas in scope. It already covers a massive swath of what was once entirely livable land.

If the pipeline doesn't go through, there's going to be an economic shitstorm, as the value of all this harsh crude will drop exponentially, and the Tar-Sands project could rapidly turn into a source of debt rather than revenue. If it does go through, this already massive swath of greasy hell is going to grow and grow. Keep in mind there are similar operations 'starting up' in Dakota, and the scale of the work there already appears to be quite massive. This all effects America about as much as it does Canada in many respects, but it barely got a mention in the arduous months of pre-election debates and discussions in the States. There's a party participating in the general election who adamantly opposes the Tar-sands, even knowing what it could mean economically.

Also, the American electoral college is messed up.

says it all.

However, if it does go through, then it will show that Obama's statements on Climate Change are bull sh*t, however I remember reading a statement on one of the people who work at the tar sands and he said that with Obama's inaugural 2nd term speech, he would highly doubt if Obama does accept the pipeline...

The president has an important decision to make.