[jimt]

Yeah, it sure is stupid to vote based on principles rather than expediency, isn't it? The important thing is to get elected, not to actually stand for something. How silly those Libertarians are !

Any Republican whiners our there who want to make a little bet? Now that the GOP controls the House, Senate and White House, how much will you bet that government will actually grow smaller? Let me know, I'll gladly take your money.

[gore_sux]

Yeah, it sure is stupid to vote based on principles rather than expediency, isn't it? The important thing is to get elected, not to actually stand for something. How silly those Libertarians are !

God forbid if someone should get involved with the party and change it from within. We do have caucuses and primary elections in the Republican party, but you have decided to take your ball and go home instead of fighting within the party.

Instead you choose to vote against the Republican party, which makes you a Democrat in my book. (I mean "you" in the generic sense, not you personally, of course.)

[anniegetyourgun]

Voting for a party that has no intention of winning is stupid. That's not what political parties are for.

But, alas, it really doesn't matter. Emjoy irrelevance.

[A2J]

Yeah, it sure is stupid to vote based on principles rather than expediency, isn't it? The important thing is to get elected, not to actually stand for something. How silly those Libertarians are!

I can appreciate that you vote for principle over expediency, but don't you think it would be wiser to support the candidate that is closer to you and has a better chance of winning with your support?

Or you can pull a Ron Paul, who wisely joined a more-electable party, garnered instant respect by doing so, was elected and is able to influence it from within.