I love how idiotic the Rupaul supporters were. YAH YAH GO RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!

Then, when he drops out, they vote the polar opposite of his beliefs, Barack Obama.

Yeah, going from the libertarian who votes against anything not specifically authorized to the Federal government to voting for the Messiah who has expanded the Federal government larger than any President has in the history of the republic.

dieAntagonista is an even brighter example of this – only Kucinich was more of a rabid socialist than Obama was in the primaries. It’s go to be something other than ideology, perhaps the voters just like to make a statement and don’t really care what the candidates actually support.

Cathy,

Did they teach US History where you went to school? It most certainly is the United STATES of America, consisting of 50 separate states free to make their own laws based on how their residents vote.

Remember, the reasoning was to promote competition between the states, so you can institute ridiculous liberal policies in states like New York and California, and pro-growth policies in states like Tennessee and Texas. Then, the people can vote with their feet for the policies they feel would advance their economic situation. Federal control of everything brings down EVERYONE when moronic policies like Obama’s are instituted, and there’s no escaping his taxation.

And your idiotic example of “slavery” is spelled out in the Constitution itself, and thus not up to states to decide (see 14th Amendment).

@...dieAntagonista: Interesting, I didn’t think I called you a socialist at all. I called Kucinich a socialist, which is a label he doesn’t try to run far from. And your interest in American politics is admirable, your confusion is also noted. Socialism is a sliding scale from full laissez-faire (the opposite) to full-on Hugo Chavez. There are degrees in the middle. Someone with a hint of socialism (such as George W. Bush with TARP) but still supports the free market overall would be foolish to call a socialist, but someone whose core principles are at odds with free market capitalism, such as Obama, would be much more apt to be called a socialist.

If this is confusing, let me make it simpler – a better term for the modern day American “liberal” would be a statist, the belief that government is the be-all and end-all to our problems.

@...dieAntagonista: Ridiculous? How the hell can you come to that conclusion based on the moves he’s made compared to the previous 42 presidents?

And my vote was for the lesser of two liberals, John McCain. But he was the very last person I’d have liked to see win the Republican primary, because the GOP has this forgetful memory where they, for some reason, can’t remember that running “lesser liberals” than the Democrats doesn’t actually win any elections.

Throughout the campaign, I was a Thompson supporter until he dropped out, then a Romney supporter.

But no one has addressed my core point – why did Ron Paul supporters back him when they (mostly) then went off to support his polar opposite, Barack Obama?

@...Puulaahi: Not really, because as I said, they were polar opposites. Sure, you need someone to vote for if your candidate steps out, but would you then go and pick the exact opposite of who you were supporting prior?

You probably hit it on your previous comment, “I would rather have an independent win but that’d never happen unfortunately.” Of course, Ron Paul was a Republican and Kucinich was a Democrat, but they’re “anti-establishment” and that’s who you wanted to see in the Oval Office. You didn’t care about policies, it was all image, and after Paul dropped out, Obama then had the image.

@...dieAntagonista: It is in your best economic interest to see a weakened America, and Obama is doing exactly that. Thus, for your viewpoint, he was the perfect candidate. It’s pointless to relive the election again, because McCain is back to his reprehensible old self with his “bipartisan” crap (read: Republicans cave and liberals pass bills). He was the lesser of two evils, and what has happened in the first 70 or so days proves that. But that’s all I’m going to say about an election with two terrible choices.

@...Puulaahi: I have every right in the world.

Wow, some people really hate to see themselves from the outside looking in. If it’s not a pretty sight, they sure do get angry.

@...Sticky: I didn’t say economy. I mean a weakened image abroad. And even for many Americans, that is their desire. There really is no other rationale for Obama’s neutering of the military and the war on terror.

@...dieAntagonista: Ok. Then explain how you could support both Paul and Kucinich.

@...Puulaahi: So am I right to assume you have no political ideology? You are an “independent” whose political beliefs sway with the wind? No core framework of how to handle a situation and how you feel a government should operate?

@...dieAntagonista: If those are the main issues that interested you, then that answers my question. Between the two, they have similar beliefs based on radically different thought processes (Paul believes in limiting the power of the government over individuals, Kucinich probably tokes up before going to the House everyday).

As for the “boxes” (which I call ideologies), when you have opinions on the whole range of issues, there usually is some fiber connecting your rationale from issue to issue. Otherwise, you’ll be caught up in hypocrisy. Ideology isn’t a bad thing, but it’s portrayed that way by intellectuals who feel that if you vote straight party line in an election, you’re an idiot.