Comment: Truth might not get votes

(See in situ)

In post: Explosives

Truth might not get votes

but it is still truth.
What is more important, exposing the MASSIVE corruption, or winning an election?
If we accept non-truther candidates, what are we getting? C'mon, you know the answer... the opposite of "truther" (and I grant you "truther" is not really a word, but play along now...) the opposite would be...?
I am present, I do not need re-presented. I would NEVER willingly vote for someone, thereby giving them explicit permission to speak for me, who did not hold my views on at least the top three issues. Those would be justice for the victims of the 9-11 crimes, war crimes investigations against the people who lied to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and exposure of the history of the Federal Reserve Act / IRS.
I am present, and I will stand all alone if I must, and demand these things. I do not want you to vote for me, I want you to stand beside me and stop voting for people who will settle for so much less. If your candidate cannot speak with respect for you, why would you support them? I feel like the old L'Oreal commercials...
"Truthers - you are worth it." I can understand a candidate taking muted stances on such a dicey topic, but "blowback" only goes so far and "despicable" goes WAYYYYYYY too far. Still waiting for an apology from that woman...
Thanks for this post. It is "preaching to the choir" I suppose, but this little choir member feels like she does an awful lot of solos these days... Nice to hear the choir chime in.
Peace. (It, too, starts with TRUTH.)

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.