Well Fox and Sean the coward Hannity got a bunch in their panties and cancelled the debate. They knew they have to have Dr Paul there and don’t want to try and explain away another Ron Paul post debate poll win. This one would have been by more that 38% I’ll guarantee you. Can you imagine winning the text with say 70% of the vote….Guess I can’t blame them. They need to realize what they are trying to sell is killing this country. The people know it and it’s time they woke up!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The lines between the GOP and the Dems is becoming indistinguishable these days, thus I vote Paul. I’m also one of those people that is thrilled that people are coming over from the Dems to vote. It shows they are not all Hillary-bots (instead of Paul-bots haha funny!). Those people, like me, long for days of fiscal responsibiltiy, times of peace, and an end to the nanny state. That makes them comrades of mine…of ours.

I also find it interesting that people say they want a straight talking candidate but when one comes along they get lambasted. So it makes me wonder if people would just rather be lied to. It’s ok $9 trillion dollars of debt with no end in sight is “ok”. Is that what we really want to hear?

The big thing that made me post here on Flopping Aces is the talk about principle and losing elections. Losing an election because you stuck to principles is more honorable and important than doing “anything to win”. History and politics is full of “losers” who were true “winners” in the long run. If the GOP runs most of the current crop the lose the “moral high ground” and the “fiscal responsibility high ground”.

History fondly remembers men of principle, but it pours out its scorn on those of little substance.

The die is cast.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The exclusion of Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo. and Duncan Hunter serves the interests of those who just wish that conservatives would just shut up “trivial” issues such our borders, illegal immigration, law of the sea treaty, etc and just get in the back of bus.

Well, we tried “lesser of two evils” with Bush and we got disaster. We are at the stage that we are so close to the edge that either the Republican front runners or Hillary will push us over the edge. In fact it might be better if it is Hillary than the Republican that tries to push us over the edge for at least with her we will have Republicans who would oppose her out of partisanship while they would support the same actions if coming from a Republican President.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I don’t understand Americans anymore. When we celebrated the bicentennial in 1976 people were in the streets shouting for America. The Constitution was displayed everywhere. There were parties and fireworks. And now? Now we’re content to call the supporters of one who honestly stands up for the Constitution and American Liberty, bots?
My ancestors arrived here circa 1720. I have 3 ggg-grandfathers who fought in the Revolutionary War. They cleared every plot of land they ever owned and built log cabins. I’m ashamed of Americans today. If you don’t support Ron Paul then YOU do support socialism.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It is pretty hopeless when nothing I stand for means anything, because I have to just continue supporting “the lesser of two evils” otherwise I lose the respect of my fellow Americans.

Thanks, fellas. Take care.

Michael, I haven’t “lost respect for you”; and I don’t know who you’ve been talking to, who have. But, what does that matter?

We’re all mostly on the same side, here. Debate is healthy; airing out our dirty laundry is healthy. Sometimes the rhetoric may get heated and we may get exasperated, with all this typing and getting through with about as much success as talking to a brick wall. But at least we got to get our ideas out there, for others to see. And if it does nothing more than to get others to think, and for us to think, then that’s better than to have kept silent, and not had this discussion at all.

You’ve been a loyal FA reader, and I hope disagreement doesn’t mean you’ll stop reading posts, here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I have also seen the comment “I really support Duncan Hunter, but I don’t think he has a chance, so I am just putting my support behind Rudy/Fred, because I belive he can win”. Wonderful. We are now an electorate that does not stand on principle or values, but only cares about winning.

Michael in Michigan,

I think you are misunderstanding the reasoning behind those who seem to only care about “winning”.

How does losing an election help? Because you decided to stand on principle?

Not to compare you at all to Jimmy Carter, but just to analogize: the Peanut President stood on “principle”, and withdrew support for the Shah because the Iranian leader did not live up to our sanctimonious standards on human rights. Carter could not foresee the consequences of “standing on principle”. In doing so, all he accomplished was to enable an even more ruthless regime to take root; one that has setback human rights, women’s rights, and has created the Iranian threat that looms before us to this day.

Those who told you that voting for Ross Perot enabled 8 years of Clinton are right in pointing that out to you. It doesn’t mean you should feel belittled, in your opinion, though.

Last November, the angry-as-hell-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore-conservatives did not come to bat for the Republican Party to “teach them a lesson”.

To paraphrase Amy Proctor, “primaries are for teaching lessons; general is for winning”.

How does a Pelosified Democratic Party-led Congress further the conservative movement?

Why do you feel “bullied”? If some disagree with you, trying to point out how your reasoning might be flawed, why is that “bullying”? Is it, perhaps, because somewhere inside you, is a voice that says, maybe they’re right? And you can’t reconcile that inner voice with “principle”?

For all the Tancredo/Ron Paul conservatives out there who are ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, no electable conservative will ever be good enough for them. Reagan is romanticized today, but he certainly would not be conservative enough for you party purists and mad-as-hell conservatives. Party purists ruin political movements. Losing elections does not push forward conservative ideology. Winning elections, does.

I vote on principle, like you, Michael….by standing behind my party’s candidate, and the party that best reflects my values, however imperfectly that they might be. This is because if the Democrats share 10% of my values and the Republicans share 85%, I’m going to support the Republican Party. And if I want the Party to eventually be in 100% alignment with my values and beliefs, I work within the Party, to bring about those reforms and changes. Not against it. Even if I were agreeing with the Republican Party only 30% of the time, I will still vote Republican, if the other party is one that I disagree with, 90% of the time.

And yes, I believe in the two-party system. If you want to put into effect change, you do so, within one of the two political parties. Going outside it, is to cast away your vote and does nothing at all to help further the issues you care about.

I’d hate for the world to go to hell-in-a-handbasket, all because I chose to “stand on principle”, rather than do “the right thing”.

Not trying to be insulting, mind you; just trying to state my case as effectively as I can.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“I give up. Your hopeless.”

Yeah, thanks. I feel that way. It is pretty hopeless when nothing I stand for means anything, because I have to just continue supporting “the lesser of two evils” otherwise I lose the respect of my fellow Americans.

Thanks, fellas. Take care.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

With Tancredo out, it’ll be easier to minimize the illegal immigration issue from coming up the debate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Michael: I won’t waste much time responding to you since you refuse to take the pledge to support the eventual nominee.

But I will however, just remind you and any lurking Paulbots of the old saying: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

I’m sorry there isn’t a VIABLE candidate in the field that meets your criteria for acceptance. I recall before the GOP nomination in 1980 people saw many flaws in Ronald Reagan (the Paulbots STILL do, but then despite their claims to the contrary, neither they nor Ron Paul are conservatives).

I remember people saying at the time that Reagan, compared to Carter, was the “lesser of two evils.”

Some evil hunh?

Carter would have taken us further down the road of weakness and appeasement with the Soviets. Reagan had a simple plan on for the Cold War. He said “We win, they lose” then he acted on that plan. And succeeded.

No one that I would have the slightest respect for would ever say that Reagan was no different from Carter, or that it didn’t make any difference who was elected.

No one I have any respect for would have been proud to sit out that election, when in hindsight we learned what a great President Reagan became.

I’m not saying that Rudy, Fred, Romney, McCain….. would ever be like Reagan. Reagan is dead and there will never be another. No one knows what kind of president any of those men would make.

But one thing is ABSOLUTELY AND UNQUESTIONABLY CERTAIN: Any of them would do more to protect the values that you and I share than Hillary Clinton.

So, if you cannot hold your nose and take the pledge to at least vote for the eventual GOP nominee, you are by default SUPPORTING the election of a person who actively seeks to overturn every principle you are making your stand upon.

I cannot seriously believe anyone for whom I would have any respect would take that course of action.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I give up. Your hopeless.

Like or Dislike: 0  0