I wonder what they promised him to get him to do that. Or, more likely, what dirt they had on him to get him to do it.

I sorry, were you under the impression that Paul wasn't a politician?

Oh, I see...

: /

The joy of the two party system. :/ You have to endorse somebody. Not all that unexpected...

>tfw you can't tell if people are playing along or not even watching the video

LOLOL, I got RR'ed sooo hard.

Hehe

"RON PAUL IS DIFFERENT FROM *OTHER* POLITICIANS...HE HAS *INTEGRITY!*"

^Along with:
"Read my lips, no new taxes,"
"All aboard the Titanic!"
"Those four off-key Liverpudlians will NEVER catch on..."
"The Chicago Cubs have won the World Series!"

Another phrase that can be added to the ashcan of history.

Sorry, PE. ;)

Well, I know one person who didn't watch.

All you criticisizing assholes....MAYBE...JUST MAYBE....Ron Paul is scared shitless about what Obama has done to this country and realizes that Romney is the least damaging choice for freedom....

Fuck....if Ron Paul came out for Obama all you idiots would be cheering him....god-damned hypocrites....

You show your stripes loud and clear.

LOL, krellin, you calling any of us criticizing assholes is like my criticizing anyone for being long-winded...

aaaaand make that two people who didn't watch.

Obiwan....you are long winded....and you ALSO happen to be an ignorant fuck...AND and an asshole.

But Ron Paul is NO Romney supporter. And if any of the ignorant fucks around here knew anything...they would know that.

Paul supports Romney because he realizes he is the lesser of evils....and...yes....lesser of evils is a valid excuse to vote....because ALL fucking politicians are evil!!!! DUHHHHH

But anyway....Obi...you are the stupidest, most narrow-minded, overly-verbose moron I have evermet. I hate Putin....but at least I read his posts. You? I don't even waste my time....not do MOST people. The irony? You are an English major....a wanna-be writer who nobody can tolerate to read.....How awful that must make you feel...

AND...foir the record....RICK ROLLED or not....Ron Paul DOES support Romney....

krellin working overtime trying to rustle jimmies tonight

@ PE

In all seriousness, I know that it is pathetic that we as Americans have to pick "the lesser of two evils" but as a libertarian I hope you realize that Romney is slightly less of a douchebag than Obama. Sure, they both represent the status quo, but Romney is at least talking a good game about small government.

dude there's a guy that isn't evil though

GARY JOHNSON 2012

Krellin, chill out, before you give yourself an ulcer.

>before
>implying he hasn't already

^

I stand corrected

I now don't feel badly for not watching before jumping the gun and posting and getting Rick Rolled. :p

I DEMAND JUSTICE.

RICK ASTLEY 2012

@ PE

It pains me to say this, but even you have to admit that a third party is never going to happen. There's too much money at stake.

(1) No, I don't. Not for the foreseeable future, no, but that doesn't mean that I (and others) can't or shouldn't work to try to make a third party viable.
(2) So? The only reason voting for someone "because he can win" makes sense is if you're gambling for money. "Electability" is a bullshit concept. Vote for the man or woman who represents your views best, go out and work to help his/her chances, and let the votes fall where they may, but who the hell cares if someone can/can't win? This country is so bass-ackwards about how it views "wasting a vote." You don't waste a vote that's supposed to represent your principles by voting for a third party that represents your principles. You waste a vote that's supposed to represent your principles by voting for a main party that doesn't represent your principles when there was an option to vote for a third party that does.
(3) At this point the libertarian bloc's best chance (to me) seems to be to continue voting libertarian until one major party or the other makes serious attempts to incorporate that bloc into their policy platform. I anticipate Romney losing by under 5% in this election. Johnson has consistently polled at least 5%. That's a decisive margin in this election. Keep that up for a few cycles and the GOP would have to have a listen.

IMO, the better place to influence part politics and build new parties is state and local elections, where you have a chance at winning. After getting a few victories under your belt, national credibility will follow. There are almost no examples in history of major departures from established political parties in large federal states that weren't first preceded by victories in state and local elections.

So, sure. Support libertarian/whatever primary candidates, donate to the party, preach on. But in the presidential election, vote for one of the two nominees until you've got a couple libertarian governors and senators and house reps on the scene with national prominence, enough to lend your movement some credibility and cohesion (no, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul aren't enough). Because otherwise, voting for someone like Gary Johnson is just a vanity exercise.

That should be *party politics in my first sentence... shows what I get for not proofreading.

Uh... you're aware we've already done that and continue to do that, right? We have Rand Paul and Justin Amash in Congress, Gary Johnson was a libertarian governor, and we've been replacing GOP officials at the state and local levels with libertarians where we can. This despite rampant corruption throughout the GOP nominating process this year...

I don't even get your point, it just comes off really ignorant and paternalistic. Do you think we just haven't thought of this? Might want to do some more research before you call it a vanity exercise.

PE i don't have any problem with you (or anyone else) voting for who besg represents you, regardless of party, that is your right and you should vote that way.... but have you given any thought to what happens if your candidate is viable enough to win some electoral votes but not the 270 to win?? If no one has the 270 votes to win, the house of rep votes (by state bloc) for pres and the senate votes individually for vp... if your 3rd party candidate has the most electoral votes, most popular votes, but not many members of the house, the your candidate won't be president.... if we had a legit 3rd party for a few elections where they are getting 15-25 percent and picking up electoral votes from a few states, then congress will start electing the potus... it would almost immediately force a constitutional amendment to get rid of the elctoral college

Hey, if we can toss that old system out and replace it with something more representative, all the better.

If you're implying that this would somehow be a bad thing, I'm still not sure why I should care. I don't see why I should have to suspend my right to vote for someone representative of my views so that other people get the same right unopposed. That's fundamentally antithetical to a democratic governing model.