Originally Posted By Mr X **This statement makes it sound like you are for his ideas but because they are not mainstream, you wont vote for him. Seems a little 2 faced.** I don't think it's "two faced" so much as practical. The guy really ISN'T electable, and that's something I don't say about Romney, Obama, or Clinton (all race/religion issues...Ron Paul is about fringe issues and they can not win).
Originally Posted By peeaanuut So you will only vote for a winner instead of the person YOU think would be best? That kind of defeats the purpose of having an election doesn't it?
Originally Posted By jonvn It's what people do, though. People see who has won in the early primaries, and so they vote for that guy. That's the main reason early primaries are so important to later on. People jump on the bandwagon. Kind of disgusting, actually. But people are simply not that bright and this is what they do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <too bad Chuck Norris never cries....ever....> He probably CAN'T. He's approaching Joan Rivers territory in terms of the amount of work done.
Originally Posted By Mr X **So you will only vote for a winner instead of the person YOU think would be best?** I didn't say I would only vote for a "winner", I said I believe he's completely unelectable. Big difference. If I thought he had a snowballs chance (and really, "electable" goes a long way), I would definitely consider it. Put it this way, I thought Steve Forbes and Ross Perot WERE electable, though it was an outside chance at best. Ron Paul, it just ain't gonna happen. So to me that really IS the definition of "throwing away your vote".
Originally Posted By SuperDry News flash: Ron Paul suspends campaign for Republican nomination <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/" target="_blank">http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/</a> I'm sure that John McCain is breathing a sigh of relief as this news reaches him!
