jmog;1162466 wrote:No one said the MSM will decide the election, but you can NOT deny that the MSM is 100% biased and therefore helping Obama.

I did not say they would decide, but they definitely help.

Yeah definitely. I enjoy hearing the left try to act like there isn't a bias in the media.

stlouiedipalma;1162380 wrote:Wow, what a surprise! The MSM will decide this election. That argument is getting more tired every time the tin-hats bring it up, which is almost daily.

I want you to watch the re-election piece that Brian Williams put together for his Rock Center show - http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11493919-president-obama-bin-laden-raid-is-most-important-single-day-of-my-presidency?lite

Axelrod, Carville, Wasserman-Schultz and the entire DNC re-election team couldn't have put together a better info-mercial about Obama if they were given a month to put it together. And the best part? It didn't cost their side one fucking dime. I'd like to know when NBC is planning such a free fluff piece for Mitt. Do you know?

Cue the "but Fox News will do it" retort.

believer;1154328 wrote:I tend to agree but the thing that scares me is that any tax increase - no matter how modest - will simply be an excuse for politicians and bureaucrats to spend more.

Give me an iron-clad guarantee that the tax increase will be applied strictly to debt reduction without additional spending and then guarantee that the tax increase will be rolled back after the debt is under control, then I will listen to the idea.

But with the clowns running the show in DC on both sides of the aisle I have ZERO confidence that this is even remotely possible.

Prove to me we can get spending under control first and THEN come to me with a tax increase proposal. Until that happens, any talk of tax increases should make all of our butts pucker.

Regarding the Big 3 you forgot to mention defense spending. You and I both know that there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse in the military procurement process that it makes your head spin.

Social Security certainly needs a major revamp but there are millions of Americans, like myself, who have paid into the system for decades and expect - and rightfully so - to see a return on that mandatory "investment." Politicians don't want to make the hard choices because they know there will be a cry throughout the land. Someone will get screwed in the process. Thus the inherent dangers of government sponsored social programs.

Medicare and Medicaid are in the same boat but I think most people would grudgingly accept some changes in those programs. After all, we're now going to be taken care of via ObamaCare, right?

I am totally with you, and would want that too if they raise taxes. Only makes sense. Then again, not many people near the Mall have sense....

2kool4skool;1161808 wrote:If Romney and his strategists are smart, they will absolutely hammer this issue: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-chinese-dissident-chen-departure-american-embassy-dark-184056059.html

Romney needs to immediately come forward with what he would do(I'm guessing grant Chen asylum.) If the administration does it, it will appear as though they are following Romney's advice. If they don't, Romney can pound them on the fact there's a blind guy and his wife and kid being beaten daily in China because the administration refused to take a stand/cowered to Chinese pressure.

Oh, agreed. This is a total cluster by the Obama camp. If Romney had any brains, he would hammer this, saying while the President totes the victories in Afghanistan and Pak, he is ignoring the larger issue with China. What a disaster for Obama on this. Huge PR victory for China.

BGFalcons82;1162592 wrote:I want you to watch the re-election piece that Brian Williams put together for his Rock Center show - http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11493919-president-obama-bin-laden-raid-is-most-important-single-day-of-my-presidency?lite

Axelrod, Carville, Wasserman-Schultz and the entire DNC re-election team couldn't have put together a better info-mercial about Obama if they were given a month to put it together. And the best part? It didn't cost their side one ****ing dime. I'd like to know when NBC is planning such a free fluff piece for Mitt. Do you know?

Cue the "but Fox News will do it" retort.

Yeah, Rock Center is usually alright, but that was all fluff.

Ron Paul delegates won majorities in Maine and Nevada this weekend.

In Maine he has so far won 17 of the 18 delegates they voted on, and there is one district yet to vote. The Maine convention just elected 2 Paul supporters as RNC members, and superdelegates. It looks like Ron should get 22 of the 24 Maine delegates.

In Nevada, Ron Paul delegates won 22 of the 25 spots voted on. 20 delegates are bound to Romney for the first ballot at the national convention, but if it goes beyond that, 22 of the 28 Nevada delegates will vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul delegates also hold a supermajority of the delegation that will decide Iowa's national delegates next month, all of which are unbound and free to vote their conscience.

He also won 16 of the 27 districts candidates in Massachusetts. These are all bound to Romney on the first vote, but after that anything goes.

Romney is already throwing baseless challenges at the Maine and Massachusetts delegations, hoping the right people will field his complaints and remove the Paul delegates, which is always possible when dealing with scum like the Republican party.

The Nevada delegation was going to vote to unbind the delegates at their convention, but the RNC sent an attorney down to threaten to omit Nevada from the national convention, so the Paul delegates that are bound to Romney on the first vote are talking of abstaining for the first vote. I love it.

If Romney doesn't get 1,144 delegates on the first vote in Tampa, things could get fun, even if Ron doesn't have enough delegates to win. If Romney is the nominee I hope the Paul people burn the party down on their way out.

Cleveland Buck;1163793 wrote:If Romney is the nominee I hope the Paul people burn the party down on their way out.

Romney is the nominee.

You Paulists continue to amaze me. It's OK for Paul to use the "R" moniker to assist his political goals, but when your candidate fails, you Paulists want to kick your host in the balls rather than losing with grace, dignity, and class. And forget backing the final party candidate in order to get rid of the bigger problem....Obama, right?

Burn the party down? :rolleyes:

Obama is not a bigger problem than Romney. They are the same problem.

Cleveland Buck;1163805 wrote:Obama is not a bigger problem than Romney. They are the same problem.

Perhaps, but I know for a fact what we have in Obama. Romney may not be better but he can't be any worse. At this point I'm willing to give him a shot.

You Paulists, who growl louder than anyone about Obama, may want to burn down the Republican Party but seem content in giving Obama another 4 years to burn down the nation.

The over-the-top hostility and arrogant attitudes of the Paulists are biggest reasons I soured on your "perfect" candidate.

believer;1163809 wrote: The over-the-top hostility and arrogant attitudes of the Paulists are biggest reasons I soured on your "perfect" candidate.

If that's true that is a shame you would allow that to determine who you would elect president. If Obama will destroy the country, and he might well do it, Romney would do the same.

Nevertheless, your warmongering, deficit spending, money printing Republican party is finished after this year. "Paulists" are taking over the state GOP infrastructure all over the country. If there is still a country to save in 2016, it will be your favorite hawks and big spenders looking for a party to join. They will probably go back to the Democratic party where they came from.

A more likely scenario is the Republican Party will be just fine and the Paulist Remnants will scurry back to the Libertarian Party to continue to waste their votes.

One would think there would certainly have to be some internal reevaluating among the Republican party, at least on a national scale, this winter. There's really no reason they should lose to the incumbent in an economy like this, but that's precisely what they're going to do.

They need to take a long, hard look at why Romney was the best they could put forward this year, and why the hell was McCain/Palin the ticket in 08? Why is someone like Huntsman, by far their best general election candidate, not able to survive past the 2nd primary while someone like Perry or Santorum hangs on?

They have to get their shit together. Because "well there's no way we can lose after 8 years of Obama" is not going to cut it, just like "there's no way we can lose after 4 years of Obama" isn't going to cut it this time.

If Republicans truly believe that Obama and his policies are "ruining the country," then they have failed in their duty as a party by nominating someone who A.) is an Obama clone and B.) can't win anyway.

I'll agree that the Republicans could have run a chimpanzee this time and easily cleaned Obama's clock but it looks like Romney is the choice.

Romney might be an "Obama clone" but I'm not convinced that's entirely correct. Romney is certainly far more qualified to be POTUS at this point than Obama was four years ago for starters. I also have a hunch he'll surround himself with better players than Biden, Geithner, Holder, Napolitano, Emanuel, etc.

This is going to be a hell of a lot closer than people think especially if the economy continues to tank. The past 3 plus years have been an economic disaster and I'm not seeing any rainbow on the horizon over the next few months that might save Barry's ass.

While this should have been a slam dunk for the Repubs, Romney is far from being out of the race.

Romney might be an "Obama clone" but I'm not convinced that's entirely correct. Romney is certainly far more qualified to be POTUS at this point than Obama was four years ago for starters. I also have a hunch he'll surround himself with better players than Biden, Geithner, Holder, Napolitano, Emanuel, etc.

This is going to be a hell of a lot closer than people think especially if the economy continues to tank. The past 3 plus years have been an economic disaster and I'm not seeing any rainbow on the horizon over the next few months that might save Kenyan Barry's illegitmate and unqualified ass.

While this should have been a slam dunk for the Repubs, Romney is far from being out of the race.

Ron Paul's goal with this whole race to begin with was to burn down the Republican Party. When he wasn't busy engaging with every crackpot conspiracy out there he was kneecapping all the Republican candidates (like he has every conservative since the beginning of time) . . . except one.

Never directed any serious criticism toward Romney besides a few weak commercials, all with the hopes of triggering the circular firing squad among R candidates and ensuring himself a role at the convention where he and his band of malcontents can break out their gasoline cans.

My main issue with the Paul supporters is that, although there are plenty of worthless Republicans deserving of their contempt, instead they save their vilest comments and kicks in the teeth for some of the good guys on our side.

believer;1163835 wrote:Romney might be an "Obama clone" but I'm not convinced that's entirely correct.

Voting for the proven failure because the other guy might not be any better. I don't get it.

Now Romney could quickly blow the goodwill, but he's got an automatic leg-up if elected just by removing the Obamaconomy overhang.

"My main issue with the Paul supporters is that, although there are plenty of worthless Republicans deserving of their contempt, instead they save their vilest comments and kicks in the teeth for some of the good guys on our side"

This needed to be repeated. The Ron Paul crowd loses its credibility when they ignore the disaster that has transpired the last 3 years, if they would focus their attention on the CURRENT government rather than the POSSIBLE government their stock would increase in my book (to quote Starsky and Hutch). It's almost as if Ron Paul supporters are living in a la la land where the painful economic policies of the last few years never touched them.

The western world is at a breaking point. We can continue towards bigger government, more dependence, feudalism, corruption in the form of vote buying (rendering Democracy useless), and cronyism or at least make a move in the direction that made the U.S. great in the first place. Gee, which candidate supports which direction. The Paul-ists are as senile as their leader.

gut;1164040 wrote:Voting for the proven failure because the other guy might not be any better. I don't get it.

I don't either. The Paulists, of course, will claim that they are not voting for Obama when they write-in Paul's name this November. But we all know that the reality of those wasted votes is that they will be default votes for Obama.

If Obama wins by a slim margin, the Paulists will point their fingers at the Republican Party and claim that if the know-nothing Repubs had simply backed their squirrelly un-electable economic genius in the first place, they wouldn't have thrown a temper tantrum and wasted their votes.

So if Obama wins re-election the Paulists can sleazily claim they had nothing to do with it.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:The Paul-ists are as senile as their leader.

Without a doubt.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

President Obama leads 253-170 with 115 toss-ups

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1612896721001/is-the-2012-race-as-close-as-we-think/?playlist_id=86858&intcmp=obnetwork

Really good video

believer;1163803 wrote:Romney is the nominee.

No, Romney is ONE of the nominees. He is not THE nominee.

believer;1163803 wrote:You Paulists continue to amaze me. It's OK for Paul to use the "R" moniker to assist his political goals, but when your candidate fails, you Paulists want to kick your host in the balls ...

To assist his political goals? You may like to think of it that way, but the more realistic option is that it's the party that he wants to restore to true conservatism (small government, little spending, no military aggression or global policing, etc. ... the kind of stuff GWB platformed on when he ran).

If his ultimate goal was personal ambition, he would have pandered to the mindless majority the way Santorum did or he would have professed the convenient position like Romney (not much of a backbone ... Reagan would be disgusted by the current Republican Party).

believer;1163803 wrote:... rather than losing with grace, dignity, and class.

The Brits probably said the same about the colonials objecting to taxation without representation.

believer;1163803 wrote:And forget backing the final party candidate in order to get rid of the bigger problem....Obama, right?

Here it is one more time ... it's the gold nugget as to why someone who cares about country more than party doesn't vote for Romney ... it's been said a dozen or so times, but for some reason, it's not getting through:

Obama and Romney are the same damn problem. Politically, they're virtually indistinguishable. By voting for Romney, you're voting for the same policies that have ransacked our nation for the last three years.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, and vice versa. They both are military interventionalists who are seemingly willing to bankrupt our nation in remarkably similar ways. They both believe the federal government has the right to monitor its own people without needing a cause or warrant. They both believe that the federal government can have someone executed with zero supervision.

They both spend way too much. They both want to tax way too much. They both want to be involved way too much in global military conflict.

If you're going to vote for Romney, what's the point in voting? Do you like the path we're on at the moment? That or blind partisanship can be the only reason to vote for the guy.

believer;1163809 wrote:Perhaps, but I know for a fact what we have in Obama.

And it's an embarrassment that we currently have in office. So why vote for his politically identical twin?

believer;1163809 wrote:Romney may not be better but he can't be any worse.

Famous last words.

In all seriousness, he's an Obama with the blessing of many Republicans. That sounds worse to me, because the Republicans in the Legislature won't fight him like they fight Obama.

The current president has been awful, but he could have been worse if the Republicans didn't control at least one branch of the Legislature. Romney has an 'R' next to his name, which unfortunately means he'll have an easier time passing the same kinds of bills.

believer;1163809 wrote:At this point I'm willing to give him a shot.

Suppose you were in a group of 10 people, and the group was given the option to ingest (a) Poison A which brought about a painful death within four days, (b) Poison B which brought about a less painful death within the same four days, or (c) a protein-rich caterpillar. You're all gonna vote on it, and whichever wins will be ingested by everyone. Now, suppose you had been told by numerous sources that if you don't vote for Poison B, then Poison A might win.

Are you going to just suck it up and vote for Poison B, or are you actually going to vote for the only one a self-preserving organism would vote for, as well as try to get others to do the same?

believer;1163809 wrote:You Paulists, who growl louder than anyone about Obama ...

That doesn't scare you about the Republican Party as a whole?

believer;1163809 wrote:... may want to burn down the Republican Party but seem content in giving Obama another 4 years to burn down the nation.

Not at all. Hell, you guys are the ones who are not only voting for an Obama clone, but you're campaigning to get others to do the same. Again, Reagan would be ashamed.

believer;1163809 wrote:The over-the-top hostility and arrogant attitudes of the Paulists are biggest reasons I soured on your "perfect" candidate.

Despite the hostility and arrogance of the "Republican-Party-first-country-second" crowd, I've soured on their proposed candidates on the candidates' merits themselves. A solid candidate can be supported by cretins and still be a good candidate.

believer;1163835 wrote:Romney might be an "Obama clone" but I'm not convinced that's entirely correct.

Okay, he might do a 180-degree turn when he gets into office. Going off his TRACK RECORD and his own statements, he's an Obama clone.

believer;1163809 wrote:Romney is certainly far more qualified to be POTUS at this point than Obama was four years ago for starters.

Eh, not sure I'd say a seedy, crooked political Gordon Gecko is more qualified ... or if I did, it wouldn't be in such a way as to suggest that being more qualified is necessarily a good thing. It'd be like saying Bernie Madoff is more qualified to do my personal investing than the hobo down the street. One has no track record worthy of trust. The other has a track record worthy of distrust.

Neither one is getting access to my accounts.

believer;1163809 wrote:I also have a hunch he'll surround himself with better players than Biden, Geithner, Holder, Napolitano, Emanuel, etc.

Maybe less hapless, but I doubt they'd be any more trustworthy.

believer;1163809 wrote:This is going to be a hell of a lot closer than people think especially if the economy continues to tank. The past 3 plus years have been an economic disaster and I'm not seeing any rainbow on the horizon over the next few months that might save Kenyan Barry's illegitmate and unqualified ass.

And if either Obama or Romney does take the Executive seat, we will unfortunately have to watch the economic decisions from the White House continue. It will be a sad day.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:This needed to be repeated. The Ron Paul crowd loses its credibility when they ignore the disaster that has transpired the last 3 years ...

What Ron Paul person has ignored this? They're the group who I hear disagree with Obama the most (or in the case of Romney, "much at all"). They're against the big spending on social programs, but also against unnecessary military spending, NDAA, the PATRIOT Act, global interventionist foreign policy (which Obama has continued from the 'W' years), and virtually anything Obama has done.

He's as close to an "anti-Obama" as there is in federal government, it seems like, and there have been plenty of "Ronulans" or "Paulists" or "Paulites" or whatever you want to call them who are saying as much, PARTICULARLY to those who are so vocally anti-Obama, but who endorse voting him back in with an 'R' next to his name.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:... if they would focus their attention on the CURRENT government rather than the POSSIBLE government their stock would increase in my book (to quote Starsky and Hutch). It's almost as if Ron Paul supporters are living in a la la land where the painful economic policies of the last few years never touched them.

Based on what? The fact that the single, number-one most common topic of discussion is the economic disaster we're in? Or maybe about the fact that they are wanting to get further away from it than the rest of the faux-Conservatives? Please share how you think this is the case. I'd love to hear the logic of that statement worked out.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:The western world is at a breaking point.

Which is why going with Obama, Pt. 2 isn't an option, let alone a preference.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:We can continue towards bigger government ...

With Romney ...

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:... more dependence, feudalism, corruption ...

A la Mittens ...

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:... in the form of vote buying (rendering Democracy useless), and cronyism ...

Ibid.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:... or at least make a move in the direction that made the U.S. great in the first place.

Bingo. Freedom. THAT'S what made America great.

Oh, and calling Romney "a move in the right direction" is odd, given your admission that Obama is the disaster he is. A pot is the wrong direction, but a kettle is the right one?

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:Gee, which candidate supports which direction.

In this election, the two most popular are headed the same way with different lapel buttons.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164043 wrote:The Paul-ists are as senile as their leader.

It's sad that belief that America is still capable of the kind of freedom our founders had in mind is labeled as "senile" thinking. Perhaps, then, I'm senile.

believer;1164053 wrote:I don't either. The Paulists, of course, will claim that they are not voting for Obama when they write-in Paul's name this November.

Can pretty much see this false dichotomy fallacy coming a mile away. Illogical statement in 3 ... 2 ...

believer;1164053 wrote:But we all know that the reality of those wasted votes is that they will be default votes for Obama.

Because he gets to take the third-party votes? Where is that rule? Does he get the non-voters, too?

A vote for Paul is a vote for Paul (or for those of you who don't, whether through inability or intentionality, think outside of the two-party ruse, it's a vote for neither 'A' nor 'B' ... tricky to handle more than two variables, I know).

The flawed assumption here is that Paul voters are "closer" to Romney than they are to Obama, so somehow, in the diluded minds of those who believe this farce, they think that if Paul was taken out of the equation, more of them would vote for Romney than Obama.

The truth is that Romney's track record pegs him as a modern Democrat in policy, a RINO. I don't care if a wolf is in sheep's clothing or not. It's still a wolf.

So the TRUTH is that a vote for Paul is neither a vote for Romney or Obama, because taking Paul off the table doesn't default to either of current wolves. It's not taking any votes out of Romney's pocket, because they would never be in Romney's pocket, which would be necessary for the false dichotomy above to be true.

believer;1164053 wrote:If Obama wins by a slim margin, the Paulists will point their fingers at the Republican Party and claim that if the no-nothing Repubs had simply backed their squirrelly un-electable economic genius in the first place, they wouldn't have thrown a temper tantrum and wasted their votes.

A) If Obama or Romney wins, it's the failure of the American public at large that is to blame. Not one party, and those of us crazy enough to think for ourselves will be partly to blame for not being able to reach enough blind partisan zombies to change the vote. Whether Romney or Obama is elected, it's America that loses. Not the other candidate and not the other party.

B) Believe me, if there was a tantrum to be thrown, it's been thrown by now. Nobody's going to be surprised or shocked if America submits the same idiotic voting record it has now for 20 years or so. 20 years isn't a terribly long time in respect to government, but it's long enough to form a pattern.

C) You'll never hear someone actually voting for REAL change saying they wasted their vote.

believer;1164053 wrote:So if Obama wins re-election the Paulists can sleazily claim they had nothing to do with it.

Same with Romney, for reasons I've already stated ad nauseum. I will have nothing to do with either one getting elected.

Ty Webb;1164300 wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

President Obama leads 253-170 with 115 toss-ups

Of course he does. He now has a proven track record as a big-government candidate at the federal level, and based on our recent voting history, that seems to be what the Ameri¢an people want: a babysitter that gives them what they need, spends their money for them, micromanages their rules and laws (things that should be handled more locally whenever possible), and is ever-vigilant in protecting them from themselves.

Yankee-doodle-dandy.

O-Trap,

Since Ron Paul chose to run as a Republican we can absolutely assume that any vote for Paul is a vote that should have gone to Romney.

I, in no way, defend Romney. I'm stunned that he's the best the Republicans have to offer....including your clearly un-electable Ron Paul.

Nevertheless, no matter how many different ways you and CB attempt to convince me that he's an Obama-clone I'd still choose Romney over Obama any day.

IF Romney loses and we are forced to endure 4 more years of Obamanomics, the Paulists will certainly shoulder a fair share of the blame.

A vote for Ron Paul is the same as not voting. You might think you're making a difference or that someone will pay attention, but it won't. Politicans care about the votes that will or might go to their opposition. Period. Romeny and future Repub candidates aren't going to pay any more attention to the Paulists than they do to the far right crazies, which potentially would cost them moderates and independent swing votes.

Showing up in the 11th hour eveyr 4 years to cast a protest vote ain't going to change shit.

Did you vote for McCain in 08? That was a wasted vote too, everyone knew he wasn't going to come within 100 electoral votes of a win.

believer;1164520 wrote:O-Trap,

Since Ron Paul chose to run as a Republican we can absolutely assume that any vote for Paul is a vote that should have gone to Romney.

You can assume all you like. You're incorrect. People are voting for Ron Paul as a Republican because he's a true Conservative, and those who vote for him believe that the Republican Party was built to be truly conservative. That doesn't mean the vote falls to Romney by default because he happened to stick an 'R' next to his name, while his history would make him a 'D' easily.

So, do you vote Republican in name or in value/position?

If the latter, you can't vote for Romney. If the former, then your vote doesn't count in this election, because you and Nancy P. are voting for the same president ... just with a different name.

believer;1164520 wrote: I, in no way, defend Romney. I'm stunned that he's the best the Republicans have to offer....including your clearly un-electable Ron Paul.

Clearly unelectable ... except for many Republicans, many Democrats, and most Independents.

Romney isn't the best candidate. He's just the most positionable. He has a lot of money in his corner, and whether we like it or not, that goes a long way.

believer;1164520 wrote: Nevertheless, no matter how many different ways you and CB attempt to convince me that he's an Obama-clone I'd still choose Romney over Obama any day.

So, no matter what, your mind is made up, and not even the most sound, reasonable construct of logic would change that?

believer;1164520 wrote: IF Romney loses and we are forced to endure 4 more years of Obamanomics, the Paulists will certainly shoulder a fair share of the blame.

If only for not doing a better job at changing the blind, long-held prejudices that are used to vote without thought, I agree, but I will not apologize for refusing to choose between one pile of dog turds labeled 'A' and another labeled 'B'.

gut;1164529 wrote:A vote for Ron Paul is the same as not voting.

If no third-party vote matters, then no vote matters this election. You have one option by two names. Enjoy.

gut;1164529 wrote:You might think you're making a difference or that someone will pay attention, but it won't. Politicans care about the votes that will or might go to their opposition. Period. Romeny and future Repub candidates aren't going to pay any more attention to the Paulists than they do to the far right crazies, which potentially would cost them moderates and independent swing votes.

Romney's moderate? Hell, then Obama is too. Who the hell is left-leaning?

gut;1164529 wrote: Showing up in the 11th hour eveyr 4 years to cast a protest vote ain't going to change shit.

Again, that will apply to anyone who votes for Barromney. Either one you vote for, you're not changing a damn thing. You might think a vote cast for Paul means little, but a vote cast for Romney is a vote of support for the current regime's policy.

2kool4skool;1164537 wrote:Did you vote for McCain in 08? That was a wasted vote too, everyone knew he wasn't going to come within 100 electoral votes of a win.

Oh, but he was the Republicans' choice, so the logic doesn't apply there.

I don't have a problem with someone choosing to vote for Ron Paul or another third-party candidate or a square of toilet paper. It's up to the Republican nominee to convince such people that he is a candidate worthy of their vote. Even though a century of presidential elections along with sheer mathematics should be enough to get their attention, it's up to Romney to bridge the gap.

I do have a problem with people threatening that, if their 80+ year old, multiple-times-fallen-short presidential candidate who routinely tinkers around the edges of multiple conspiracy theories doesn't get the nomination, then they hope to see the Republican Party burned to the ground. All while claiming with a straight face that every conservative who doesn't embrace libertarianism is a raging Marxist and is no different from Obama.