Ron Paul supporters

[kieefer]

Then the vast majority should have no trouble with Obama, since Romney was cut from the same cloth.

Apologies accepted. This was your quote I was commenting on that "I know I won't" meaning that I have no problem voting for Romney because I know he is NOT the same as BHO. I've got the ABO mindset since the primary is over with.

I've also given up on dyed in the wool RP/GJ voters like you. Nothing can be said, so you vote your way and I'll vote mine.

I do wish our goals were the same in removing this marxist but so be it.

BTW. I don't care what religion one is within office, as long as they don't impose their religion on me...or if they are muslim.

.

Edited July 23, 2012 by kieefer

[Guest ThePunisher]

Don't worry, all the brainwashed Paulbots will quiet down after November when Paul loses utterly and completely. Or they'll just whine for 4 years about how more people shoulda voted for Paul. So it'll be just like the usual.

Not only will they whine, but they will be crying when they see their country going down the crapper.

[sigmtnman]

Is the rent the same in Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant sects?

- OS

Thanks for keeping me honest regardless of your tenets. I should have just said Christianity. Everyone must pay the rent when it comes due.

Edited July 23, 2012 by sigmtnman

[plank white]

This is only one of the reasons I wont Vote for Romney

choosing between Romney and Obama is like Not having a choice at all

do people really not see this?

anybody with a " Dont Tread on me " Flag should Take it down because you have been Tread upon .

[LagerHead]

Rant heard and accepted with the same feelings. What burns me up is that RP knows what is at stake and surely knows that Mitt really is the only solution to getting this marxist out of office. He should throw his support to Mitt and the R-Party that got him as far as he's been.

You're asking Ron Paul to not be Ron Paul, which he is not known for doing. In fact it's quite the opposite.

On another note, there is an assumption by the OP that all Ron Paul supporters are Republican converts. That is far from true. Libertarians pull (nearly) equally from Democrat and Republican ideology. The so-called extreme ideals of each party tend to be weeded out by Libertarian leaning folks as they tend to encroach on personal freedoms one way or the other.

[kieefer]

You're asking Ron Paul to not be Ron Paul, which he is not known for doing. In fact it's quite the opposite.

On another note, there is an assumption by the OP that all Ron Paul supporters are Republican converts. That is far from true. Libertarians pull (nearly) equally from Democrat and Republican ideology. The so-called extreme ideals of each party tend to be weeded out by Libertarian leaning folks as they tend to encroach on personal freedoms one way or the other.

So, Ron Paul is more of an Isolationist than I really know.

I've always said that he's looking out for himself and no one else. I bet his Son knows this too since he supports Romney and not his own Dad.

[plank white]

Some folks will never get it . Its really not that hard to see that in order for RP to put support behind Romney he would have to throw away 70 years of self respect , Honor , and integrity . Just because the Republicans did as they were told and chose Romney to go against Obama doesn't mean Romney is a good choice.

Romney is quoted saying he is for Gun rights and quoted saying he is for Gun Prohibition.

Romney is a staunch advocate for doing away with Obama care yet Obama care is Based on Romney care .

Numerous other flip flop statements have been made like this and if I cant vote for Ron Paul in the election Ill vote for Gary Johnson .

Ron Paul supporters have been bashed in , made fun of , and disrespected from the begining by mainstream republicans and they think RP supporters should just say OH well never mind standing our ground we should do what we are told.

I think its time people quit falling for the 2 party system which controls everything and stop voting for the "Less of to evils" and vote for good

sure wish my parents and grandparents would have done the same and not left this mess for us . All I can tell my son when he is older and the economy drops out from under us and we are living in a True Police state That atleast I tried I spread the word as much as possible and voting for a good man not the guy who didnt Lie as much as the other guy .

Edited July 24, 2012 by plank white

[Oh Shoot]

....Numerous other flip flop statements have been made like this ....

Romney's a pragmatist, and he'll try to run the place as a business as much as possible. Sure, his stances have not been the same forever.

Reagan was once an uber liberal Hollywood union president, too. Wise people learn and change as they go through life.

- OS

[Clod Stomper]

I think its time people quit falling for the 2 party system which controls everything and stop voting for the "Less of to evils" and vote for good

That will not happen until we restrict who can vote to only the producers and exclude the parasites.

"If only people would vote their principles/conscience then we could get a good candidate/Ron Paul/etc." Blah, blah, blah. I hear it every 4 years. The problem is that 75% or more don't know what the F they're voting for or against in the first place. They know that Dem-icans promise them freebies and Republi-crats promise them lower taxes.

I love most of Ron Paul's policies. I'll accept his foreign policy in order to have his domestic policy. But listen to me. HE IS NOT GOING TO BE ELECTED. A vote for RP is a vote taken from Romney, for the most part.

I'm not happy that Romney is the Republican candidate. I believe that, at best, he will SLOW DOWN government overgrowth, rather than completely reverse BO's policies. And the policies of the last century that have led us to where we are. At this point I will take a slow-down so that I may prepare myself and my family for whatever is to become of this country in the next few years.

Keeping BO in office will keep us on the fast-track to ruin. I don't think it will take him another four years to completely ruin us.

I won't hold a grudge against anyone who votes Libertarian in the the general election. I am libertarian. But I will hold my nose and vote for Romney in order to get this marxist out of the white house.

Incrementalism. It's how they work and how we have to work. Romney first. Then someone more conservative. Then someone slightly libertarian. Then full-fledged freedom-loving Constitutionalist. That is, if the whole shebang doesn't swirl down the crapper first.

The biggest mistake the left made? Obama, a hard-core leftist with a hard-core agenda and not afraid to implement it. With a more "moderate", squishy, wishy-washy prez (think McCain), we'd still be on the wrong track, but much slower. But there wouldn't be the backlash that there has been. If there is one bright side to his "presidency", it is the backlash that it brought. Is it enough backlash to save us? That is yet to be seen. We'll have a clue in November.

I'm rambling. Sorry about that. There isn't much continuity in the above. It's past my bedtime.

Will

P.S. The above wasn't directed at you, Plank. Just random thoughts.

[Clod Stomper]

Romney's a pragmatist, and he'll try to run the place as a business as much as possible. Sure, his stances have not been the same forever.

Reagan was once an uber liberal Hollywood union president, too. Wise people learn and change as they go through life.

- OS

Yup. Agreed. I hope he actually has changed his stance. Particularly on things like guns and gov-controlled health care. We'll see, I guess.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

On the "religious nut" thang-- Or just generic nuts of any kind--

Thought-control nuts can't tolerate other people BELIEVING the "wrong way" even if the "wrong beliefs" make no difference in behavior. For instance two cotton pickers both pick a bale a day-- One cotton picker who believes in creationism is good but the other cotton picker who believes in evolution is bad and must be converted, silenced, or eliminated. Abject horror at the thought of heretics believing in one god rather than three, or that the universe is steady-state rather than big bang, or that nature is more important than nurture or that winders is better than mac. If the King is a thought-control nut then he has been known to kill men by the millions over mere ideas and then erect a statue to himself for doing such good deeds.

A "slightly milder" behavior control nut has no desire to convert, punish, silence or liquidate non-believers. The behavior control nut doesn't care what you believe but you dang well better follow the RULES of his religion or else. If his religion doesn't believe in tennis shoes then the government must wage a war on tennis shoes. You can believe in tennis shoes but you can't have any tennis shoes. If his religion doesn't believe in rosaries then you can believe in rosaries all day long but we better not bust you in possession of a rosary. If you know whats good for you.

Makes no never mind to me what a fella believes as long as he leaves me be. I'll return the favor. I would vote for an atheist, mormon, christian, jew, muslim, buddhist, whatever, provided there is sufficient confidence the fella agrees with me on policy and he's not gonna make everybody live the same as himself. Even if a politician agrees with me on policy and appears basically competent, he's a non-starter if he looks likely to push a way of life on everybody.

Some politicians are plainly idiots regardless of policy. Some politicians might give the illusion of competence but disagree on policy. It is so frustrating to find a politician who agrees on policy and might even be marginally competent, but he won't shut up on religion. It would be the same problem if he is competent and agrees on policy but can't shut up on lack of religion. If they can't stick to business and shut up on lifestyle it is just too risky that they are too hung-up on the irrelevant and maybe after they are elected, housten we have a problem. There are several politicians who would have been twice as effective if only they had enough willpower to say half as much. Pay attention to guns and butter, taxes and spending, and let the rest slide.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There can and should be "acid tests" to hopefully determine what kind of leader is chosen. For example, and please

blow it out of proportion whatever you might find that say to be offensive, whoever that might be, suppose you chose

a muslim as your next president and, if you found out before the election that he opposed his Sharia Law to be used

in this country, with our Constitution already hopefully still embedded here. Now, after the election, he or she decides

it is best to make Sharia the deciding law institution. Would you not have that slight taste of acid creeping in your throat,

yet?

Acid tests aren't the "be all, end all", but they can be useful. In politics, if you don't want Sharia Law, don't elect a muslim,

because I was being absurd in the above paragraph, but there are situations you might find useful information by using

them. The 2nd Amendment is a useful because it is fundamental and is bastardized by politicians, but the issue keeps

them from straying too far, the closer it gets to the election cycle.

[sigmtnman]

On the "religious nut" thang-- Or just generic nuts of any kind--

Thought-control nuts can't tolerate other people BELIEVING the "wrong way" even if the "wrong beliefs" make no difference in behavior. For instance two cotton pickers both pick a bale a day-- One cotton picker who believes in creationism is good but the other cotton picker who believes in evolution is bad and must be converted, silenced, or eliminated. Abject horror at the thought of heretics believing in one god rather than three, or that the universe is steady-state rather than big bang, or that nature is more important than nurture or that winders is better than mac. If the King is a thought-control nut then he has been known to kill men by the millions over mere ideas and then erect a statue to himself for doing such good deeds.

A "slightly milder" behavior control nut has no desire to convert, punish, silence or liquidate non-believers. The behavior control nut doesn't care what you believe but you dang well better follow the RULES of his religion or else. If his religion doesn't believe in tennis shoes then the government must wage a war on tennis shoes. You can believe in tennis shoes but you can't have any tennis shoes. If his religion doesn't believe in rosaries then you can believe in rosaries all day long but we better not bust you in possession of a rosary. If you know whats good for you.

Makes no never mind to me what a fella believes as long as he leaves me be. I'll return the favor. I would vote for an atheist, mormon, christian, jew, muslim, buddhist, whatever, provided there is sufficient confidence the fella agrees with me on policy and he's not gonna make everybody live the same as himself. Even if a politician agrees with me on policy and appears basically competent, he's a non-starter if he looks likely to push a way of life on everybody.

Some politicians are plainly idiots regardless of policy. Some politicians might give the illusion of competence but disagree on policy. It is so frustrating to find a politician who agrees on policy and might even be marginally competent, but he won't shut up on religion. It would be the same problem if he is competent and agrees on policy but can't shut up on lack of religion. If they can't stick to business and shut up on lifestyle it is just too risky that they are too hung-up on the irrelevant and maybe after they are elected, housten we have a problem. There are several politicians who would have been twice as effective if only they had enough willpower to say half as much. Pay attention to guns and butter, taxes and spending, and let the rest slide.

Lester, you put it well. I've not always done so, but I do use religion as an acid test, only because the politicians have become so full of crap that at least I won't have to worry about a non believers beliefs being shoved down my throat, which seems to be the trend of late. That does not mean I would blindly support a Christian candidate and quite the opposite is true. Santorum is a good example of a Christian who I could not support because I feel he would push his religious views onto the masses. If I could be 100% positive a politician would not do as 6.8 points out, I could probably vote for a him even if he was not a Christian, but I trust most politicians about as far as I can throw them.

Pragmatism get's thrown around way too much and is used incorrectly much of the time in my opinion. Waffling because of mass stupidity or because you want votes is not pragmatic. Lying to accomplish a goal is not pragmatic.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi sigmtnman

Yes even voters who would "in principle" support candidates with radically different beliefs on personal freedoms, given sufficient confidence that the leader won't "go rogue". The personal freedoms issues inevitably also leak into economic freedoms and basic human rights. Because one can't ever gain excellent confidence that things can't "get out of hand", it always appears safest to back a candidate with religion similar to one's own.

I use a broad definition of religion because it is as good a word as any. Any belief system impervious to argument or proof. Beliefs impossible to move by any means. The believer knows the straight scoop and will enforce this truth on the entire planet if possible. You can dabate until the cows come home without shaking the belief system. Which would be acceptable and dirt common among our citizens. The dangerous ones are those believers impossible to convince that it is foolish, dangerous and suicidal to force personal beliefs on the entire world.

Atheism. Fanatic unreasoning belief in green issues or global warming. Or the opposite fanatic unreasoning disbelief in global warming. Blind faith in such as science, communism, capitalism. Or a flawed narrow interpretation of "rationality" or "humanitarianism". They can all be so similar to religion among true believers that one might as well name them religions.

Voters go for what they know just in case things get out of hand and the authorities begin marching people into gas chambers. A voter hopes he might be last in line rather than first in line.

It is why I would tend toward an atheist other things being equal, as you would tend toward a christian candidate. So far other things have not been equal. IMO many "christian" politicians are atheist but must pretend otherwise in order to get elected. Which makes them liars atop other unfortunate properties. The prominent politicians I tag closet atheists I couldn't support because they are meddling authoritarian atheists equally dangerous as authoritarian christians, muslims or jews. They know the truth and the world shall follow the truth come hell or high water.

So one must try to find anti-authoritarian, small gov, live and let live politicians regardless of their religion. Though such politicians are dang difficult to find and apparently near-impossible to elect.

Though rare as hens teeth, the closest to ideal religion for a "harmless politician" would be a classical skeptic. Which has a different meaning than modern definition of the term. The classical skeptic can no more prove his belief than anyone else, but his unshakable belief is that you never know anything for certain. Actually I go by the atheist tag but classical skeptic is more accurate. The classical skeptic would be least dangerous and things would be least likely to "get out of hand" because the classical skeptic doesn't have a belief system to force on atheists, christians, rationalists, humanitarians, etc. He would say, "Well you may be right about that, but then again you may be wrong. Knock yerself out. Whatever floats your boat."

The classical skeptic politician, when asked about religious topics, would reply with some variant of "I don't know". We don't get many politicians very likely to answer, "I don't know" on ANY topic. They are genius experts on every topic imaginable, and they know exactly what will fix everything. Just ask them. They will tell you. Better bring a lunch because the lecture might take awhile.

[media=]

[/media] Edited July 24, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yes voting third party this go around will ensure America re-electing someone as dangerous as Hitler. I believe OS has said something to the effect that Obama is evil, possibly as evil as the anti-Christ himself.

I believe that your personal principles should be secondary to the more important principles of saving America from this dangerous and evil person in the WH this go around. I still believe we can salvage America, but only by defeating Obama in November.

Even all Paul and Johnson supporters surely have seen what a dangerous president Obama is, and the possibility of completely destroying America if he is re-elected. Or maybe not.

Just remember, I truly believe that Obama and his Marxist cronies surrounding him are the only ones that hate America.

Hi Mr P. Should Romney win, maybe he will be the best thing since sliced white bread. There's no telling, he may turn out pretty decent. He seems brighter than G.W., Gore, Kerry, and especially Obama. Clinton was pretty bright though didn't approve of many of Clinton's actions.

Romney is bright enough to mostly conceal "what he really thinks" though in such concealment does appear quite the flip-flopper. Or perhaps he shares a good bit with Clinton, motivated by a drive to be "famous", be "liked", and add POTUS to the already-long resume, more than any deep convictions one way or t'other. Its kinda weird that Clinton did as well as he did, guided by such as Dick Morris who in the last 12 years has been correct on at best 10 percent of his wise prognostications. Not that Morris is especially idiotic or sleazy-- He just cranks out the wrong answer more often than the right answer.

People criticized Clinton as wishy-washy and poll-driven, not "ruling" from firm core convictions, but I think that was a good thing. If Clinton started jumping the shark and then polling of the citizens went down, he would re-adjust to remain popular and "liked". I'll go way out on a limb and guess that even Clinton's anti-gun stance was not any core conviction. Dick Morris screwed up the polling and told Clinton that gun control was a winning issue, and Clinton took his word on it. If Dick Morris had told Clinton that gun control would hurt his popularity and also kick Gore's chances in the Y2K elections, then Clinton would have been pro-gun in a heartbeat. Its just another bit of bad advice Morris managed to churn out.

We get too many imperial presidents. G.W. and Obama about equally bad. Thank God we didn't get McCain. McCain would have been a strutting martinet on acid and steroids. I don't think the founders envisioned that our elections are sposed to elect a never-ending progression of temporary dictators. Elect the R and then get a Castro-style emperor R president for a term or two. Then elect a D and get a Castro-style emperor D president for a term or two. I imagine that the founders expected the president to implement the will of the people. Too many presidents, they get elected and basically say, "I'm gonna do what the hell I want until ya'll kick me out, regardless what ya'll think." Serial temporary dictators.

Compared to that, a wishy-washy poll-driven president is lots better, assuming they would hire a more accurate pollster than Dick Morris. So if Romney doesn't have any core convictions and rules according to polls, it might turn out an improvement. I'm not saying Clinton was a great guy, but on the other hand an R congress along with Clinton presided over much better times than we've had under All-R Bush or All-D Obama, or even 2/3 D Obama. I don't think Obama is as smart as Clinton, and Obama might like being popular but he's basically a strutting autocratic martinet. If Obama were truly poll-driven and had a lick of sense, we might do better to give both chambers of congress to the R's and leave Obama as president. But Obama isn't smart enough to cooperate so it wouldn't work the magic of the Clinton years.

If Romney wins the white house then odds are R's will get both chambers of congress as well. Maybe it will be great this time, but last time, 2000 to 2006, that combination screwed us to the wall, and I frankly don't think they've learned a damn thing since. So if R's get control of the entire enchilada-- I would hope they would do good, but more realistically they will screw it up as bad or worse than last time.

That's basically what I'm sayin, Mr. P. You are real certain you will save the world by giving the entire enchilada to R's again. Maybe you are correct, or maybe you will be sorely disappointed by what really happens. I hope you are not disappointed. If Romney and an R house and senate doesn't disappoint you, then it probably won't disappoint me too much either. But if I was a gambling man I think I could make good money betting, "If the R's take it all they will screw it up just like last time." If you get real emotionally involved supporting a bunch of asshats and they screw you, over and over, then eventually it is a little bit demotivational.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest ThePunisher]

Hi Mr P. Should Romney win, maybe he will be the best thing since sliced white bread. There's no telling, he may turn out pretty decent. He seems brighter than G.W., Gore, Kerry, and especially Obama. Clinton was pretty bright though didn't approve of many of Clinton's actions.

Romney is bright enough to mostly conceal "what he really thinks" though in such concealment does appear quite the flip-flopper. Or perhaps he shares a good bit with Clinton, motivated by a drive to be "famous", be "liked", and add POTUS to the already-long resume, more than any deep convictions one way or t'other. Its kinda weird that Clinton did as well as he did, guided by such as Dick Morris who in the last 12 years has been correct on at best 10 percent of his wise prognostications. Not that Morris is especiallyP idiotic or sleazy-- He just cranks out the wrong answer more often than the right answer.

People criticized Clinton as wishy-washy and poll-driven, not "ruling" from firm core convictions, but I think that was a good thing. If Clinton started jumping the shark and then polling of the citizens went down, he would re-adjust to remain popular and "liked". I'll go way out on a limb and guess that even Clinton's anti-gun stance was not any core conviction. Dick Morris screwed up the polling and told Clinton that gun control was a winning issue, and Clinton took his word on it. If Dick Morris had told Clinton that gun control would hurt his popularity and also kick Gore's chances in the Y2K elections, then Clinton would have been pro-gun in a heartbeat. Its just another bit of bad advice Morris managed to churn out.

We get too many imperial presidents. G.W. and Obama about equally bad. Thank God we didn't get McCain. McCain would have been a strutting martinet on acid and steroids. I don't think the founders envisioned that our elections are sposed to elect a never-ending progression of temporary dictators. Elect the R and then get a Castro-style emperor R president for a term or two. Then elect a D and get a Castro-style emperor D president for a term or two. I imagine that the founders expected the president to implement the will of the people. Too many presidents, they get elected and basically say, "I'm gonna do what the hell I want until ya'll kick me out, regardless what ya'll think." Serial temporary dictators.

Compared to that, a wishy-washy poll-driven president is lots better, assuming they would hire a more accurate pollster than Dick Morris. So if Romney doesn't have any core convictions and rules according to polls, it might turn out an improvement. I'm not saying Clinton was a great guy, but on the other hand an R congress along with Clinton presided over much better times than we've had under All-R Bush or All-D Obama, or even 2/3 D Obama. I don't think Obama is as smart as Clinton, and Obama might like being popular but he's basically a strutting autocratic martinet. If Obama were truly poll-driven and had a lick of sense, we might do better to give both chambers of congress to the R's and leave Obama as president. But Obama isn't smart enough to cooperate so it wouldn't work the magic of the Clinton years.

If Romney wins the white house then odds are R's will get both chambers of congress as well. Maybe it will be great this time, but last time, 2000 to 2006, that combination screwed us to the wall, and I frankly don't think they've learned a damn thing since. So if R's get control of the entire enchilada-- I would hope they would do good, but more realistically they will screw it up as bad or worse than last time.

That's basically what I'm sayin, Mr. P. You are real certain you will save the world by giving the entire enchilada to R's again. Maybe you are correct, or maybe you will be sorely disappointed by what really happens. I hope you are not disappointed. If Romney and an R house and senate doesn't disappoint you, then it probably won't disappoint me too much either. But if I was a gambling man I think I could make good money betting, "If the R's take it all they will screw it up just like last time." If you get real emotionally involved supporting a bunch of asshats and they screw you, over and over, then eventually it is a little bit demotivational.

Lester

It is hard for me to believe that the R's could screw this country up any worse that what we've had from the Commie Czar, Reid, and Pelosi. And if they do, then there is no hope for our nation other than becoming a Third World country.

Edited July 25, 2012 by ThePunisher

[TMF]

If you get real emotionally involved supporting a bunch of asshats and they screw you, over and over, then eventually it is a little bit demotivational.

It continues to amaze me that such a minority of Americans have been able to arrive at this conclusion.

[kieefer]

To the Mitt is the same as BHO crowd, do you really think he could do worse?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There's a lot of work to be done before anything

good happens, and I would much rather have

the senate and house firmly red than just it be

a red pres. If the opportunity is for all, great,

and just the pres, not too bad, either.

After the election we have to put a lot of pressure

on every single politician we know. Work toward

primarying a lot of the progs and libs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

While I do agree, just being red aint enough. I sure hope Corker does not win the primary.

[Oh Shoot]

While I do agree, just being red aint enough. I sure hope Corker does not win the primary.

There hasn't been but one TN senator unseated in my voting lifetime (I'm 64, and it was Ross Bass in 1966), and only a handful in whole history, so don't hold your breath.

- OS

Edited July 25, 2012 by OhShoot

[sigmtnman]

Take away: Damn, you are old.

Seriously though, I can hope.

[RobertNashville]

I meet some more die hard Ron Paul supporters today handing out flyers that said Ron Paul was the only answer to beat Obama. I did a little Q&A with them and for the most part they were nice and humored me. I asked them a question that seemed to piss them off and they walked away from me. What might that question be you ask, I simple asked "How does Ron Paul plan on winning when the last third party to win a single electoral vote was 50 years ago and the last guy to take more than 50 electoral vote was a guy named Theodore Roosevelt?" They did not have anything to say to that and just walked away from me. I normally I do not talk politics but this year my blood is boiling a little with people voting 3rd party so they don't have to vote for Romney and they fully believe that the 3rd party person they will vote for can win the election. I am all for voting for who you think is the best candidate any year but this year. To me this year comes down to voting for based n how you feel Obama did the last 3 1/2 years. If you are ok with his job vote for Obama, if you are upset with the direction of the country then you need to vote for Romney. To many people voting straight ticket kills any chance for a 3rd party to win. ok rant over

Most, or at least the most vocal of Ron Paul's supporters are beyond "passionate" about the man...it's almost to the point of a religion for them. However, they try to present supporting/voting for their candidate as the logical position to take. Based on years of experience, I believe it's true to say that the easiest and quickest way to really piss off someone is to take their almost "religious" belief in something/someone and show them that their believe lacks any logic at all so, I'm not surprised that these RP supporters would get pissed off and just walk away.

I mentioned in another thread that, because I am not voting for RP, I have personally been berated, denigrated and personally attacked by RP supporters this year. It's been so vehement that at this point and as much as I know Obama is a true and significant danger to our country, I think I'd have trouble pulling the lever for RP even if her were the R nominee. That's a shame really, because I agree with a LOT of RP's positions on issues but his supporters have truly been repulsive and reprehensible in their behavior this cycle.

[RobertNashville]

This next statement is sure to piss off plenty of folks... The choice between a Muslim and a non Christian, is not a choice I will participate in.

It doesn't piss me off but it does disappoint...surely we aren't going to vote or not vote for someone because of their religion (or lack of religion) are we? I would hope not.

Personally, I would find making a voting choice based on "religion" just a disgusting as making that decision based on skin color.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

To claim that you have to give Bush Sr. most all of Perot's votes, but exit polls show close to an even siphon from both candidates, with about 25% of Perot voters saying they wouldn't have voted at all had he not been on the ballot.

I remembered that from long ago, but don't remember this and couldn't seem to find it right off -- if all the Perot votes were given to Bush, he'd have won the popular vote, but would that have also swung the electoral to him?

- OS

Nail on the head. I the chicken man didn't have the impact that RP will have in this upcoming election.