$10 says we get another hanging chads problem. This time it'll be in California because California sucks.
Yeah, that's about what I expected. You can't rebut the facts presented, so instead attack the guy who presents them.
You'll just have to excuse me for actually taking the time to research the presidential candidates. I am very glad I did, rather than taking the word of Ron Paul fans about how great their guy is, and how only "Dr. Paul" can save America.
Ron Paul may indeed adhere to the Constitution. The point in question was about voter fraud. The fact that people are not voting per your thinking doesn't suggest that there is something nefarious going on. They may simply disagree.
I don't "endorse" anyone. I will very likely abstain.
McCain is an authoritarian.
Paul has zero chance, and I distrust him anyway.
Clinton and Obama are socialists.
Vote fraud is alive and healthy.Always has been. Like I stated in another post,
"Those who vote decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything"
Being in Communist Russia makes no difference.
Not trusting Ron Paul? Well, perhaps adhering to the Constitution must be bad. It's been a while since anyone has. Scary thing for those one worlders.
Was it voter fraud when Ronald Reagan was elected too?
Ron Paul has 14 delegates to the convention, only 1150 to go. Woo Hoo. I hear he's big in American Samoa.
Romney had sense enough to drop out with only 291 delegates.
Well, that and his "I voted against earmarks before I voted for them" thing.
Actually, come to think of it, I don't see how Mike Huckabee can make a comeback with the delegate count the way it is. But I suppose Huckabee and "Dr. Paul" will forge on in an attempt to make the point that Sen. McCain doesn't speak for all Republicans, which is certainly true.
Maybe Paul will run as a third party Libertarian, which is really where most of his beliefs belong, anyway. This way he can get less than 1% of the vote, which seems about right. I wonder if his remaining fans will demand a recount. Of course, in Ron Paul Fantasy Land, I'm sure the election officials in every state are secretly Stalinists conspiring to strip The Constitutional Messiah of his rightful ascension to the presidency.
Speaking of politicians in general, he says:
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
Then I guess Mr. Smith will be abstaining or voting third party this year. I do agree that there is an overaching philosophical difference that generally makes conservatives lean against gun control and liberals lean toward it, though.
Realistically, though, most politicians (like most people) hold contradictory philosophical premises. The candidate you like on gun control may be completely off base (to you) on, say, the environment or the war in Iraq.
But seriously don't we all sorta wish there was that "perfect" candidate whom we agreed with 98% of the time? As has been stated here and elsewhere, we gotta go with the one closest. And that really sucks right now in my NSHO.
I can agree with that to a degree. In a democracy, compromise is often necessary, though to quote Jeff Cooper, "One should not be happy about shaving one's principles."
But I do think there are some things that are non-negotiable. I won't vote for a candidate who, like Sen. McCain, goes out of his way to crush the First Amendment, for example. Even if I liked his positions on many other issues, I couldn't give him my vote because of McCain-Feingold. It says way too much about his arrogance and his very casual disregard (if not outright disdain) for the Bill of Rights.