The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I tell you where I agree with you:

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You should figure out your (see in situ)

Michael Nystrom's picture

I tell you where I agree with you:

There are almost as many answers as there are individuals in the community, and for many of us, the paraphrased answer is "absolutely nothing"; for many others, there may actually be something that can be done to win over their support.

This is true. But spacehabitats is in a special position here at the DP in being able to poll a variety of Ron Paul supporters on this issue. I think he can bring back a representative sample of what people are thinking.

Marginally speaking, Romney might be a better choice for the next 4 years than Obama, but it is almost the difference between a Quarter Pounder and a Whopper. At least the Whopper has lettuce.
At the same time, voting is such that it will only matter in a handful of states (at least that is what they want us to believe). But in Massachusetts, I can hardly see this state voting for Romney, so for me, it really doesn't matter how I vote, or if I vote at all. Iowa may be a different story.

In the end, I'm afraid I don't have an answer, because I'm not in a position where it would matter. If I were in a swing state, I might have some better ideas. Obviously, if I were in the party apparatus and trying to work my way up, I think the answer would be some kind of a horse trade: You support me for blah blah blah in the future and I'll vote for your guy and you better not doublecross me!!!

In the end, Ron Paul will be blamed because he refused to endorse Romney. But I'm not of the opinion that Obama's got it sewed up... Not yet, anyway. And what would be a disaster would be for Romney to win in spite of not having support from Ron Paul and his supporters. That would just prove our irrelevance.