Comment: I disagree with the first "fact"

(See in situ)

I disagree with the first "fact"

I think I agree with your conclusion, although I had a hard time following some of it, but I want to disagree with something you call a fact: "The GOP cheated us because they theorized they didn't need us."

Here's an alternate view: they cheated us because it was a politically expedient way to get Romney to the nomination with minimum uncertainty, and Romney is all about political expediency. If Ron Paul's six states had been recognized, and he had been allowed to speak, there was a chance, maybe not a huge chance but a very real chance, that he could have taken the nomination away from Romney. Or if not that, then it could have embarrassed Romney greatly, because if Ron Paul were allowed to speak his mind in prime time he would have poked holes in *lots* of what Romney is campaigning on. In many cases, things that Obama is also doing and that Romney can therefore count on not being challenged about in the general election.

Now they have to fix the problem of having pissed off the Revolution. And they're only thinking about November at this point. There's really only one way that the Revolution could hit them where it hurts, and that's a third-party run. (I'm assuming, and I think it's a very safe assumption, that only a tiny percentage of people in the liberty movement will protest by voting for Obama.)

It's not that they're afraid of a third party *winning*. They're afraid of a third party "Nadering" Mitt, by hurting him in the electoral college the way Nader hurt Gore. They're afraid of this because even without Ron Paul as a third-party candidate (which would be a complete game changer) we DO have the numbers to Nader the bastards and send them a clear message in the only language they understand: you can't shit on the Revolution and expect to win elections.

Note that backing a third party challenger to Nader the bastards this November is not even slightly in conflict with the "taking over the GOP from within" strategy. Which makes it a bit curious that the most vocal opponents of organizing an effort to show the GOP that they can't get away with what they did last week and expect to win elections that way, are the people who have signed the RNC loyalty oaths and want others to do the same.

Ignore anyone who wants you to respond to the RNC dissing Ron Paul by signing an RNC loyalty oath. I can't see ever doing that, but especially not now, not a week after they broke their own rules and shamelessly stole the opportunity from Ron Paul that he had won fair and square.

Show them in the only language they understand that you can't shit on the Revolution and expect to win elections. Nader the bastards.