Should "Truthers" be allowed to hold political office?

And getting back to the question at hand, assuming the person is otherwise eligible to hold the office, then of course truthers must be allowed to hold the office.

And birthers and deathers and Muslims and Jews and Christians and former CEOs and former janitors and deaf people and Wiccans and gun freaks and gun control freaks and ...

The day the US comes to the point that somebody's opinion/belief/faith is a legal bar to holding elected office, we are truly gone.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


I agree, but according to John Gibson, that day is already here. He even called for Ron Paul to step down because of interest in further exploration of what really happened.

How can we as citizens ever hope to have a voice in the political arena if we don't tow the party line? If Gibson is right, then NO 3RD PARTY will ever stand a chance of having their voice heard.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Wow, I really do find it disgusting that someone can be considered unfit for office simply for wanting to know what really happened on 911 rather than being spoon fed the unproven official story.

That being said it should be the voters who decide who is electable.

The issue I have with the truth movement is that it all too often is filled with arrogant minds who believe that not only is the OS false but that they themselves KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what did happen that day. Rather than casting doubt on the flimsy OS the "Truth Movement" has devolved into petty in-fighting amongst theorists who think they have the monopoly on truth and that they have figured out exactly what transpired that fateful day. The "movement" has become so polluted by disinfo and psuedoscience its almost as much a farce as the official story and its proponents.

The MSM like to poke fun at anyone who doesn't conform to the false reality they create, its a way for them to reinforce their false view of the world by alienating anyone who disagrees and painting them as a loon.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
I agree, but according to John Gibson, that day is already here. He even called for Ron Paul to step down because of interest in further exploration of what really happened.

Hmmm, well, I don't know who John Gibson is first hand, but from the OP it sounds like he is just some radio guy just expressing his opinion, to which he is certainly entitled.

My opinion is that he is frightened to even contemplate the possibility that 9-11 might have been more than the official story says it is. I see this a lot... (too) many people just do not want to go there.

How can we as citizens ever hope to have a voice in the political arena if we don't tow the party line? If Gibson is right, then NO 3RD PARTY will ever stand a chance of having their voice heard.

Unfortunately, he may well be right in terms of actual electability. This is a different matter than being legally barred from holding office, and sadly is probably at least as effective.

Currently in the US, yes, it is virtually impossible for someone without a D or an R after their name to be elected to any national office. This is a matter of ignorance and team mentality on the part of the voters, and obvious self interest on the part of the two-party members that make the rules.

But so far at least, it is not barred by law for truthers and such to hold office.