[mountainfolk]

Having read many of the posts regarding Ron Paul it is obvious to me that the one thing he and his supporters will accomplish is, as elizabetty says, to shore up the Hillary Clinton Presidential election campaign. I know several Paul supporters and I respect their fervor for libertarian views up to the point of a reality check in the event they succeed in putting a socialist RAT in the White House. These Paul supporters believe in any number of conspiracy theories but are reluctant to include the most likely one pertaining to the current Presidential race. No way have the RATS not factored in a Perot type third party to give them the extra points needed to win. It worked for them before. And no way are they leaving anything so crucial to chance. Sorros money is unlimited and buying a third party amounts to CHUMP change for him. I think the Paul supporters need to explain what they have done to actually change those conditions of government they find wanting. Are they just spoilers who use the Republican party as a platform to criticize the achievers in office and expound on the evils of big government? Seems to me that putting this Republic at danger of morphing into a socialist, one world government is short sighted. And lazy. Their concerns will all be moot if the Clinton grifters move back into their command center at the White House. Socialism does not cater to concerns about big government, the federal reserve system, etc. Quite the opposite.

[Dreddnafious]

David frum, of the national review disagrees with you.


Yesterday, I posted an item casting doubts on the significance of Ron Paul's one-day $4 million fundraising haul. I suggested that his achievement is comparable to Ralph Nader's in 2000, and much less impressive than Howard Dean's in 2004. I went on to suggest that the main effect of Ron Paul's campaign, if continued to the end, would be to take votes from Hillary Clinton and thus help a Republican ticket headed by Rudy Giuliani.

[incindiary]

I hope you don't mind me answering your post. It's amazing to me that this argument is still going on - it has been going on for so many years, and we have gone over this so many times, but what many in the GOP still don't get - refuse to get - is that they are losing people, and have been for years, because of the Republican candidates we've been given to choose from. They aren't conservatives, they're globalists, many of them (like Giuliani) are liberals with an R by their name, they're no different than the Democrats. These politicians you want people to vote for are supportive of unconstitutional, globalist policies that are destroying our country. The two major parties try to appear so different, but on some of the most important issues in regard to our country's future, they are the same, two wings of one party.

You seem to be promoting the same thing that we talked about on this site back in the 90's, that conservatives should hold their nose, go against their conscience and vote for the lesser of two evils. Why? Because we want to win! Well, what are we winning? If the result is slowly destroying our country, and if the people you want conservatives to vote for don't represent our views (because they are big-government, big-spending, open borders, weak on the 2nd amendment and abortion, globalists) then what are we winning? The usual response at this point is: It's better than the Democrats.

But if there is almost no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, supporting the RINO is not winning. You may win an election, but the country is losing. What's more important?

If the GOP is stupid enough to keep putting out candidates like Giuliani or others who are no different than Democrats, then whose fault is it if they lose? You want to put the blame on people who aren't going to vote for the pro-choice, anti-gun, open-borders globalist, who doesn't represent the views of many conservatives. Why not realize that the GOP is shrinking because they are Republicrat globalists, and it is their own fault if they lose?

To answer what you said about Ron Paul...
1) He is going for the nomination and has stated that he does not plan to run third party.
2) Even if he does run third party, don't blame people who are voting for what best represents their views instead of going against their conscience. I am sick and tired of some Republicans blaming conservatives who choose to vote for the candidate that most represents THEIR views, and not getting behind the socialist-lite, globalist RINO that you want us to support. If the Republicans, like the Democrats, are going against the constitution and our sovereignty and taking us towards world government, then it is THEIR fault if they lose an election.

Your statement here didn't make much sense, can you rephrase it? : "Seems to me that putting this Republic at danger of morphing into a socialist, one world government is short sighted. And lazy. "

Unless I misunderstood what you're saying... If you haven't realized by now that it is politicians in both parties (or should I say our one-party system) that have sold out to socialist-corporatist globalism, then you haven't been paying attention. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who supports a candidate on either side who is a phony and whose record shows they are a globalist, is putting our Republic at danger, and that is what many people are finally starting to wake up to and realize.

And if it makes you feel any better, the conservative/constitutionalist Ron Paul supporters who I have encountered would NOT have voted for the GOP candidate anyway, so you're not losing a vote you wouldn't have had in the first place.

Speaking of the topic of voting for the lesser of two evils, here's a very interesting speech that I hope you take the time to watch. Please watch the whole thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg