Ron Paul

[Xavier_Onassis]

I fail to see why I should root for Ron Paul, as though my doing this would actually cause anyone in this forum to vote for him based on my advice.

I was simply commenting on the improbability that he would get the GOP nomination. He is not a typical politician: he is dogmatic, he does not compromise on anything, he is probably too old to run for president, and he is rather short of stature. I admire his refusal to  go along with the war in Iraq and "war on drugs". He is preferable to his son. He would probably be the very best candidate that the Libertarians could run, certainly better than Bob Barr.

[sirs]

So, if I undestand you right, and given the consistency of similar responses, you root for nothing, unless your say has a direct likelyhood of the outcome you're rooting for.  Ummmm, ok

[Xavier_Onassis]

You make no sense at all. I was simply saying that cheering for Ron Paul when I think that his only attribute is that he is totally unelectable would be a foolish thing to do, since my cheering for him would not cause anyone else to favor him.

I was simply commenting that I do not believe that he could ever be elected President. That's all.

[sirs]

As I said, must be pretty boring at your place, come superbowl Sunday, or in watching any other event between opposing factions, be it sports or anything else.  Since you have no direct ability to effect the outcome, "oviously" you don't root for anything or anyone, per your apparent position

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't watch sports, because I really could care less who wins.

When I was in high school and I knew the players, it was interesting.

Sports are generally good exercise for those who play them, but I really could care less about any sort of competition between people I do not know about silly games. I never understood why anyone gets excited about such things. Watching someone repair an engine is far more exciting to me than a bunch of goons who dress alike and fiddle with balls.

I would not vote for Paul for president, because I think he would be a disaster.

[sirs]

...or in watching any other event between opposing factions, be it sports or anything else."

[BT]

Its obvious his failure to root speaks volumes and certainly will be duly noted.

geez

[sirs]

Ya think so?  Good thing someone's keeping tabs on that

[R.R.]

I was simply commenting on the improbability that he would get the GOP nomination.

Who will probably get it?

[BT]

Ready for your dark horse:

John Kasich

[sirs]

Works for me

[Christians4LessGvt]

John Kasich

would be a disaster!
i like him....good conservative
but Obama or Hillary would be appointing Supreme Court Justices if we nominate Kasich.

[Religious Dick]

I don't think Ron Paul getting the nomination is an issue. He's 75 years old.

Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels would prolly be my top choices among candidates that could actually win.

Romney? Meh. Not my favorite, but I could vote for him. At least he has some economic expertise, the lack of which scared me with both Obama and McCain.

Then again, another term of Obama might be what it takes to make the pot finally boil over.

I can't say that I have a whole lot of interest in who wins. The situation being what it is, I suspect events will be driven by circumstances, rather than individuals.