I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but "the greater good" helps split the over/under on the odds between dying old in bed, or in an alley with our AR's...
Pouting that Paul or whoever isn't in the mix, "Let it all fall down sooner than later" really doesn't provide us with a solution, and you figure that after Balkanization, the Idaho/Montana/Wyoming-ish successor state is going to have a "good enough" approximation of "how things ought to be" isn't a viable solution for most of us. And long-term, isn't for Idaho/Montana/Wyoming either.
There won't ever be a "restoration". Not going to happen. The best we'll ever get is a Pyrrhic victory where hopefully we can make a bunch of the Socialist Left, and Corporatist authoritarian center-right pay for what they've done with their lives first.
Yeah, I get all that. I've been voting for 38 years now. The only times I've ever voted FOR someone was Tom McClintock for office here in CA (who I would vote president for life) and George W round one (maybe Reagan as well, but I can't remember). All the rest of my votes have been cast as "better than nothing" or, "Can't let 'X' win". I figure after all this time that I've built up some voting seniority and the right to gripe, and the right to write-in a candidate who has no chance of winning if I decide I've had enough of status quo.
Doesn't mean I won't vote for Cruz now, but I believe I have the right not to vote for him if I decide he has changed course. Perhaps Iowa is in fact overblown and I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Still, whether he has done anything or not, I believe we should be better than giving
any candidate a pass because whatever illegal or smarmy thing they did was not as bad as the other guy. While harsh reality may prove otherwise, we shouldn't be content with less bad behavior. It's like saying, "John Doe only shoplifted, while Jane Doe committed murder". I'd like to support a John Doe who not only didn't commit murder, but didn't shoplift either.
