Where can I get Ron Paul stickers today?

[gcrookston]

Imho- he is not electable. Talk about wasting your vote. No offense intended.

That's exactly what they said about Ross Perot, and look at how WRONG they wh..., um, oh wait.


Never mind.


I've been a registered Libertarian for over 20 years and Ron Paul is too flaky, even for my party's majority.

[Hoosier]

That's exactly what they said about Ross Perot, and look at how WRONG they wh..., um, oh wait.


Never mind.


I've been a registered Libertarian for over 20 years and Ron Paul is too flaky, even for my party's majority.

Yeah, but if the 2012 election was Obama v. Paul, who would the L's vote for?

H.

[sneakerd]

A lock-step libertarian, no matter how much I agree with many of those principles, will not be elected.

[CMP_5.56]

I've always wondered if all the people that say they would vote third party, but feel it is a wasted vote. If all those people actually voted for those people, would it really be a wasted vote.co vote for the candidate I agree with the most. You can say It's wasted, but I can sleep with a clear conscious knowing I stood by my beliefs.

[sneakerd]

Standing by your beliefs is one thing, putting your vote towards an un-electable candidate is another. He's not even going for a 3rd-party vote, he's trying to be the Republican nominee. You know just as well as I do that he will not be the GOP nominee. As I said, I respect many Libertarian ideas, but I'm also realistic. He will not move far enough towards the center to be elected. All candidates must move towards the center during the election cycle, whether from the right or the left, to get elected. He's a fringe candidate.

[Rust_shackleford]

So let us continue down this road and elect some turd burglar from either party. Gee where did my freedom go?
No other candidate even addresses liberty.

[sneakerd]

Unfortunately, in every election cycle we are presented with 2 "mainstream" candidates. 1 from the left, 1 from the right. Like it or not, this is a 2 party system, and that's just the way it is. We have to choose the candidate who most closely adheres to our individual values. 1 candidate represents 65% of what we truly believe, the other fulfills (in electioneering talk) 25% or less, of what we believe. Which one do you choose? Sitting it out "on principle" only helps the guy whose belief system least mirrors our own. I'll choose the guy who most closely resembles my beliefs, and will NEVER sit out an election on principle- just because I'm not in lock-step with the guy who is closer to my beliefs. The lesser of 2 evils is exactly that. Sitting it out on principle only helps the other side.

[gcrookston]

Yeah, but if the 2012 election was Obama v. Paul, who would the L's vote for?

H.

I can't speak for the L's. But if it came down to those two, the U.S. is more fare gone than I was hoping.

[ghettodub]

Yeah, but if the 2012 election was Obama v. Paul, who would the L's vote for?

H.

I have a hard time with Ron Paul, just because I like a lot of what he stands for, but I don't like the fact that he has some conservative social beliefs and has voted so several times. I'm a pretty staunch libertarian, so anything like that bugs me, but I know that the chance of a pure L being elected is pretty much nil right now. So I guess my decision will just have to wait and see who the end candidates are, but if it was Obama vs Paul, I would go Paul

[sneakerd]

Absolutely, Obama vs Paul, I'll vote for Paul. Not because I am a staunch Libertarian (I'm not), but because if those are the choices, he is the lesser of 2 evils.