Ron Paul Twitter Account

[seyferjm]

Chris Kyle is no hero to me. That said, I can't imagine Ron Paul gloating over someone's death. Even if that someone gloated over the death of others. It's not in Ron's character to do that.

Exactly.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

This thread is stealing the thunder from general politics, lol.

 

[TruthisTreason]

Do tell. I talked to Ron personally.

Care to name names?

No because this is serious business. I'll wait and hope Ron has someone competent handle it.

 

[EBounding]

Carol should be the only other person who has access to his twitter account.

 

[sailingaway]

Carol should be the only other person who has access to his twitter account.

works for me, but we'd have long dry spells, I'm afraid. This did NOT have his initials though, as some posts on facebook and twitter are starting to have, though.

 

[XTreat]

I can understand why you would not trust an anonymous username, but I told you so.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/why-ron-pauls-twitter-is-getting-a-little-more-in

Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul has been attracting negative attention all day for a tweet he sent Monday morning regarding the death of former Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle at the hands of an Iraq War veteran. But get used to off-the-cuff Twitter activity from the former presidential candidate: Paul, 77, is now running his own Twitter feed, a spokesperson says.
"He runs it," said Campaign for Liberty communications director Megan Stiles, who is handling Paul's press requests since he retired. She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."
"Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense," Paul tweeted on Monday. Kyle was shot and killed by Eddie Ray Routh, a veteran of the Iraq War who had post-traumatic stress disorder, at a shooting range in Texas.
The tweet outraged people on Twitter, particularly conservatives. Commentary editor John Podhoretz called it "appalling"; "you really are vile," tweeted Republican strategist Rick Wilson.
Paul's tweet seemed to prompt the return of the Ron Paul Newsletters Twitter feed, which was active during his presidential campaign and tweets quotes from the controversial newsletters published under his name in past decades that frequently included racist or homophobic passages (Paul and his aides have maintained that he wasn't the author of the newsletters). It had been laying dormant since March.

 

[sailingaway]

I can understand why you would not trust an anonymous username, but I told you so.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/why-ron-pauls-twitter-is-getting-a-little-more-in

except his running it doesn't mean he doesn't let others use his password to fill in when he doesn't have something burning to say. Someone on here a few days back said the new 'REP' tag meant it was from him. This one didn't have that.

compare: https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129

 

[XTreat]

except his running it doesn't mean he doesn't let others use his password to fill in when he doesn't have something burning to say. Someone on here a few days back said the new 'REP' tag meant it was from him. This one didn't have that.

compare: https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129

She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."

 

[sailingaway]

She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."

how would she know who tweeted today?

Does or does NOT the R E P stand to indicate it is him, himself, as opposed to someone else, as the BO on Obama's twitter account indicates it is him?

https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129

His recent facebook pages also had REP on them.

However, I do consider an outside chance he was just really editing down a much longer and less accusing tweet and wasn't used to the 140 digits, in which case I want to know what he meant.

 

[phill4paul]

I can understand why you would not trust an anonymous username, but I told you so.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/why-ron-pauls-twitter-is-getting-a-little-more-in

This leads no credence to this particular discussion.

 

[cajuncocoa]

“Another question people ask a lot: Did it bother you killing so many people in Iraq? I tell them, “No.” And I mean it. The first time you shoot someone, you get a little nervous. You think, can I really shoot this guy? Is it really okay? But after you kill your enemy, you see it’s okay. You say, Great. You do it again. And again. You do it so the enemy won’t kill you or your countrymen. You do it until there’s no one left for you to kill. That’s what war is.”

“Just because war is hell doesn’t mean you can’t have a little fun.”

Lovely, isn't he?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-slain-seal-chris-kyles-book-american-sniper/

 

[EBounding]

She clarified that Paul started handling his own tweets "since he left office."

But does that mean only he has access? To me it sounds like he never tweeted during the campaign, but now he does it personally along with whoever else has access.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

BS.

Why are you constantly trying to make it as bad as possible?

It's a little more than "bad", it could tarnish Ron's legacy and destroy everything the man built for decades if he's perceived to be spitting on the graves of veterans. It's especially hurtful given how hard the campaign worked to court the veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan, and others wars. I recall being in those Veterans for Ron Paul tents speaking with soldiers. It's really poor taste to dance on the grave of someone just murdered and then see that action defended on this forum. It's odd I would have to explain something so obvious to you, but maybe you weren't at those Veterans for Paul events.

 

[XTreat]

This leads no credence to this particular discussion.

His press secretary confirming that he is "handles his own tweets" isn't pertinent?

 

[hardrightedge]

If Ron Paul wrote that tweet, he will never be taken seriously again...If the man died in combat, I can understand someone saying something like that...but he died at home trying to help lost vets...disgraceful

 

[acptulsa]

But does that mean only he has access? To me it sounds like he never tweeted during the campaign, but now he does it personally along with whoever else has access.

How dare you? Don't you know the Collins Law? When someone uses font size four, that means you have to take what they say at face value whether it's clear, verifiable, and/or true or not.

His press secretary confirming that he is "handles his own tweets" isn't pertinent?

Pertinence is one thing, credibility is something else. 'Handling' could mean anything from 'does it all with his very own fingers' to 'no longer has his campaign manager look it over once or twice a month, but looks it over once or twice a month himself'.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This tweet basically translates to 'he had it coming'. Wether or not he did have it coming is besides the point.

Or it could simply be a statement of fact, with no particular judgement at all. Kyle shot a lot of people, and then he was shot. Nothing more than an observation.

When did Ron attack Kyle?

It seems to be open to interpretation what the intent of the tweet was. Was the tweet an "attack"? It appears that some people see it that way. Was that the intent? Only the author of the tweet knows.

Did Ron actually write the tweet? That's another question.

 

[sailingaway]

It's a little more than "bad", it could tarnish Ron's legacy and destroy everything the man built for decades if he's perceived to be spitting on the graves of veterans. It's especially hurtful given how hard the campaign worked to court the veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan, and others wars. I recall being in those Veterans for Ron Paul tents speaking with soldiers. It's really poor taste to dance on the grave of someone just murdered and then see that action defended on this forum. It's odd I would have to explain something so obvious to you, but maybe you weren't at those Veterans for Paul events.

this is exactly the type of post I mean. You take that tweet, which I agree shouldn't have gone out, and turn it into "spitting on graves" and "dancing on graves" and escalate it to 'tarnishing his legacy and destroying everything the man built for decades' which is ludicrous.

 

[phill4paul]

His press secretary confirming that he is "handles his own tweets" isn't pertinent?

It has already been pointed out the difference of "his" usual tweets. Please let me know her views on this particular tweet.

 

[sailingaway]

Pertinence is one thing, credibility is something else.

It could just mean THEY don't handle them any more.