Although I think we’re on the same side, it’s been bad policy for the Ron Paul people to declare that if there’s anything they don’t like about the Republican nominee, they’re going 3rd party. That isn’t what all Ron Paul people do. Some do, some don’t. But the Republican powers that be see that and don’t react well to it, to our detriment. Do what you want, but I don’t think the Ron Paul people should make a loud point about going 3rd party. I should add that I probably should have read your post a little closer before I wrote what I wrote.
The ONLY reasons why I am "one of the Ron Paul people" is 'cuz, in comparison to all other current GOP nominees, he has been the most consistent candidate out there who has a track record of protecting & defending the Constitution of the United States. PLUS, he has the non-interventionist/America First foreign policy that was espoused by the Founding Fathers. That's it; nothing else.
Most of our fellow FReepers consider that type of foreign policy to be "isolationist" & one of weakness, but I think that's total BS. It seems to me that the PaulHaters have a foreign policy in which they think it's America's place to police the world & "spread democracy", & I believe THAT weakens our military by scattering them abroad rather than being strong & protecting the homeland like I think it should.
If a Republican who had more of an Originalist view RE: the Constitution & foreign policy were to emerge from the shadows, I will gladly support him or her. I believe that they are out there: Reps. (or former Reps.) tom Tancredo, Michele Bachman (sp?), Dana Rorhabacher (sp?), Jeff Flake, & Duncan Hunter re a few of them, re well as Sens. Tom Coburn & Jim DeMint are some others that I hold in high regard.