Comment: Just as I suspected. No

Just as I suspected. No answer.

I'm arguing against your point that endorsing someone equals accepting all of their positions. Ron Paul has endorsed plenty of people who don't share positions with him. Do they all support legal weed and heroine? If Gary Johnson were running for Senate, there is no doubt in my mind that Paul would endorse him... like he is doing for other Senate and House hopefuls who are even less about liberty than Gary Johnson.

My question is not moot. You've created a separate argument and proved that Ron Paul didn't endorse McCain or Bush (and speculated that he wouldn't endorse Johnson). That's great... but it's a straw man.

It is simple... you think that by endorsing a person, you endorse each of their positions vicariously. This is the argument... and it is false.

Now let's try the "yes or no" again. Hypothetically, IF Ron Paul endorsed Gary Johnson in a Senate run, would that mean that Ron Paul is now Pro Choice?

Here's an actual example... SINCE Ron Paul endorsed Thomas Massie, and Thomas Massie is AGAINST legalizing drugs, does this mean that Ron Paul is AGAINST legalizing drugs as well?

Yes or no?

Oh, and no matter how much you want your clock analogy to make sense... it doesn't.