RT: Tom Hartman on Ron Paul blackout. Reason plugs alternate candidate as usual

[Harald]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6Eaps1FAEo

This is the second time in the last few days when reason guys keep supporting the idea that Ron Paul cannot win. This is very annoying

[sailingaway]

The Kochs never liked Ron. He's not 'pragmatic enough' about corporate welfare (meaning he thinks there should never be any.) And about NAFTA CAFTA (which Ron figures is not free trade and violates US sovereignty.) Johnson's 'cost benefit' approach rather than strict adherence to principles is much more 'pragmatic' from the Kochs' point of view. Looking at the Daily Caller since Ron declared his campaign, I'm wondering if the Kochs weren't behind Tucker's funding as well.

[NewRightLibertarian]

They're all out to get Ron. It's really something.

[sabu140]

I already cancelled my subscriptions. Time to give them negative reviews on amazon.

[IndianaPolitico]

"I am a principled non-voter." Tom Riggs.

Then you sir, are part of the problem. Get off of your rear and change the party!

[The Free Hornet]

"I am a principled non-voter." Tom Riggs.

Then you sir, are part of the problem. Get off of your rear and change the party!

This is a valid choice. When voting, I skip a contest that has nobody I want to elect. This communicates to the winner that their position is not as firm. The affect is small, but so is the affect of voting itself.

Too often, people worry about "voting for the winner" or "not wasting your vote". There is only one way I know of to waste your vote: not voting your conscience (or "not not voting" for Tom Riggs). Consider that any election has two outcomes:

1) your vote decides the outcome - had you voted differently, Mr X would have defeated Mr Y.

2) your vote has no affect on the outcome - 99.9...9% of the (national) elections

Then why vote? The purpose of the vote is to communicate your support for a person, policy, or platform. Whether your side wins or loses, your vote tells people whether to implement an idea, try it again later, back off from the idea, or attempt to overturn the result next time. When you vote "to win", then the vote is wasted.

I don't doubt that there are exceptions to this. Some people believe that "might makes right" or they get an endorphic high from having "the winner's" button on for election day. Maybe some desire unanimity in policy making. In my opinion, none of these things are good and are wasted votes.

How many millions of votes go to waste because people will not tell us what they think and instead they try to pick the winner?

A good government is based on the consent of the governed. Perhaps Tom is witholding that consent.

[iwearshirts]

jesus that reason guy's face is annoying