I'm not voting.  And here's why.

First of all, I certainly understand the whole "civic duty" argument, so don't worry about that part.

As a conservative, I was strongly backing Santorum as the most conservative candidate.  But it seems that a lot of people, as usual, want a "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" candidate -- at least that was the general vibe I got whenever I discussed politics with colleagues or co-workers.  In short, Santorum "scared" them with his social conservatism.  And the "mainstream" or "establishment" Republican position seemed to be the same, with Romney being the candidate of choice from the start.  Most "establishment" Republicans (and note I specifically didn't say "conservative" Republicans) felt that he would be the best bet to beat Obama.

But, as with McCain, it seems to be a fear on the part of Republicans of conservatism.  In other words, the sentiment seems to be to find a strong moderate so as to attract "independents."  And we were told that Romney would attract the independents and everyone argued that "he's the only one who can beat Obama."  Which is pretty pathetic if you think that it's going to be that tough to beat Obama, right?  I mean, that gives me an insight into your preconceptions about the country: that people generally like what Obama is doing and it's going to be a battle to take him down.  OK, fine.  And what do we get as a response?  Well, in 2008, we got McCain, who is a moderate Republican.  In 2012, we're getting Romney, who nobody can really say what he is.  I mean, he's said specifically that he's not a conservative, but his positions have changed radically depending on what situation he's in.  So basically we've nominated a true "politician."

So what does that have to do with me voting?  Well, for one, I'm not interested in voting for Romney, even as a "vote against Obama."  I didn't vote in 2008, either, for the same reason.  Think of it this way.  If we elected McCain and he did his lame moderate reach-across-the-aisle schtick and the country tanked, everyone would say "see?  That's what happens with Republicans!" even though he would be governing as a centrist.  Happened with Bush, too.  I mean, Bush was good in certain respects, but he also spent like crazy and advocated amnesty for illegals and that's thrown in our face all the time now like "oh, conservatives are for amnesty ...right??"

So I've been told by the party that Romney will be the guy to defeat Obama and that's why he needed to be our candidate and that's why "scary conservatives" needed to be ignored.  Fine.  Have fun beating Obama without this "scary conservative."  I presume you won't need my vote since he'll attract all the moderates and independents.  If he doesn't win, the Republican party brought it on itself.

This pretty much explains my position.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20120127195104tomr.nb/topstory.html
Though I'll still vote for which ever RINO gets the nod.
But if Hussein were to win, I'm not all that worried.

Right on C-B-M!

I read the link but it's rather troubling.

First of all, partway down, it says that Hussein keeps the White House but "we have both Houses and that's a given."  Hey, if that's a given, then why did we get stuck with Romney and why did Barry Hussein beat him?  It's a contradiction in thinking.  To my mind, either conservatism wins or it loses.  The establishment Republican party says it loses.  Fine, let's say they're right.  Then why would it win in Congressional races?  That's lunacy.  This is a case of Republicans "putting up" with conservatives/Tea Party members when they deliver them wins DESPITE what the establishment does.

Second of all, the article says it's no big deal that Hussein appoints a liberal to the Court.  Whaaaaaaaaaa?  I mean, the Supreme Court and the morons liberal activists there are perhaps the most dangerous form of government.  Look at how the judiciary just slaps down stuff in California that people pass by referendum.  Or how they eliminate property rights in Connecticut.  All we need is someone like Sotomayor or Kagan and they get forty years until they look like Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg.  That's decades of stupidity like Breyer "finding stuff in foreign laws" to base his opinions on.

Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
I read the link but it's rather troubling.

First of all, partway down, it says that Hussein keeps the White House but "we have both Houses and that's a given."  Hey, if that's a given, then why did we get stuck with Romney and why did Barry Hussein beat him?

Local elections are not the same as the presidential primaries.

Quote
  It's a contradiction in thinking.  To my mind, either conservatism wins or it loses.  The establishment Republican party says it loses.  Fine, let's say they're right.  Then why would it win in Congressional races?

It did in November 2010.

Quote
  That's lunacy.  This is a case of Republicans "putting up" with conservatives/Tea Party members when they deliver them wins DESPITE what the establishment does.

C-B-M, we have Romney right now, who is a liberal.  The RNC didn't want the conservatives to advance.  Romney is as bad as Hussein, hence why we need a strong House and Senate to stop him (or Romney).

Quote
Second of all, the article says it's no big deal that Hussein appoints a liberal to the Court.  Whaaaaaaaaaa?  I mean, the Supreme Court and the morons liberal activists there are perhaps the most dangerous form of government.  Look at how the judiciary just slaps down stuff in California that people pass by referendum.  Or how they eliminate property rights in Connecticut.  All we need is someone like Sotomayor or Kagan and they get forty years until they look like Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg.  That's decades of stupidity like Breyer "finding stuff in foreign laws" to base his opinions on.

He didn't say that.  He said the conservative justices wouldn't retire under Hussein, and so what if we replace a radical lib for a radical lib.

Quote from: taxed on April 21, 2012, 03:09:39 PM
Local elections are not the same as the presidential primaries.

How so?

Quote from: taxed on April 21, 2012, 03:09:39 PMIt did in November 2010.

Sure, but that's my point.  See, 2010 showed everyone that socialism was despised.  And yet look, in 2012 the establishment acts like 2010 didn't happen.  Why?  In my mind, after 2010, you'd go hard-core to the right.  Instead, we ran away from it in terror like little schoolgirls.  In other words, the establishment is telling us to elect someone like McCain so we can run the country into the ground like 2008 and then on off-year elections we'll come back.  Hooray.

Quote from: taxed on April 21, 2012, 03:09:39 PMC-B-M, we have Romney right now, who is a liberal.  The RNC didn't want the conservatives to advance.  Romney is as bad as Hussein, hence why we need a strong House and Senate to stop him (or Romney).

I know we NEED a strong Congress to battle the White House.  I'm just asking why anyone would say "well, the country clearly doesn't want conservatives, so we need Romney" and then expects the same country to vote into office a bunch of conservative Congressmen.  That's my only point.  The "establishment" thinking gets us this illogical divide.

Quote from: taxed on April 21, 2012, 03:09:39 PMHe didn't say that.  He said the conservative justices wouldn't retire under Hussein, and so what if we replace a radical lib for a radical lib.

Then we still get a Court with four liberals in power and essentially laws are decided by one swing vote.  See what I'm saying?  Why settle for that when we could knock off Ginsberg and maybe Breyer and get a clear majority of people who actually follow the Constitution, rather than interpret it?

Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
I read the link but it's rather troubling.

First of all, partway down, it says that Hussein keeps the White House but "we have both Houses and that's a given."  Hey, if that's a given, then why did we get stuck with Romney and why did Barry Hussein beat him?  It's a contradiction in thinking.  To my mind, either conservatism wins or it loses.  The establishment Republican party says it loses.  Fine, let's say they're right.  Then why would it win in Congressional races?  That's lunacy.  This is a case of Republicans "putting up" with conservatives/Tea Party members when they deliver them wins DESPITE what the establishment does.

Second of all, the article says it's no big deal that Hussein appoints a liberal to the Court.  Whaaaaaaaaaa?  I mean, the Supreme Court and the morons liberal activists there are perhaps the most dangerous form of government.  Look at how the judiciary just slaps down stuff in California that people pass by referendum.  Or how they eliminate property rights in Connecticut.  All we need is someone like Sotomayor or Kagan and they get forty years until they look like Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg.  That's decades of stupidity like Breyer "finding stuff in foreign laws" to base his opinions on.

Taxed pretty much covered it, but what I meant by its a given, is because the base.Tea party will make all the difference and hold whomever is elected in check.
The GOP may have the primary system locked up, but from the bottom up, the Tea party is pulling the strings, regardless of what the media tells you.

What I said was: "the worst thing he will do is appoint a lib to SCOTUS, fine, so he replaces a lib with a lib".
There is no way in Hell, outside of death, would a Conservative justice step down under Hussein.
Slow down and read it again.

Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 03:15:53 PM
How so?

They are local, versus national.

Quote
Sure, but that's my point.  See, 2010 showed everyone that socialism was despised.  And yet look, in 2012 the establishment acts like 2010 didn't happen.  Why?  In my mind, after 2010, you'd go hard-core to the right.  Instead, we ran away from it in terror like little schoolgirls.  In other words, the establishment is telling us to elect someone like McCain so we can run the country into the ground like 2008 and then on off-year elections we'll come back.  Hooray.

To come back full circle to why the national versus local are different, the RNC doesn't want conservatives.  Us conservatives are the enemy of these people.  After the 2010 midterms, people like Lindsey Graham thought he was amongst the winners.

Quote
I know we NEED a strong Congress to battle the White House.  I'm just asking why anyone would say "well, the country clearly doesn't want conservatives, so we need Romney" and then expects the same country to vote into office a bunch of conservative Congressmen.  That's my only point.  The "establishment" thinking gets us this illogical divide.

Because the media seems to work.  Thinking people are conservative.  Too many people think conservatism is in the minority, so the perception takes us down.

Quote
Then we still get a Court with four liberals in power and essentially laws are decided by one swing vote.  See what I'm saying?  Why settle for that when we could knock off Ginsberg and maybe Breyer and get a clear majority of people who actually follow the Constitution, rather than interpret it?

Yup, we need someone who will appoint justices who uphold the Constitution.

Where are you hearing such nonsense, like the country doesn't want Conservatives?
2010 elections kicked that crap to the curb.
And how do you propose we knock off Ginsberg and Breyer, impeachment?

Yes I'll be voting in November for the Mormon...it's better than the Marxist.
I don't like either of them but one is better than the other.


Billy

I want Obama out badly.  As a conservative, that's #1 on my to do list.  My ideal choice is not on the ballot.  This, to me, is a referendum on the manner in which Obama governed.  I want to send the message that it will not be tolerated.  If I sat home on election day I feel like I voted for Obama.  Sometimes you aren't so much voting for a candidate as against the other.

Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
I read the link but it's rather troubling.

First of all, partway down, it says that Hussein keeps the White House but "we have both Houses and that's a given."  Hey, if that's a given, then why did we get stuck with Romney and why did Barry Hussein beat him?  It's a contradiction in thinking.  To my mind, either conservatism wins or it loses.  The establishment Republican party says it loses.  Fine, let's say they're right.  Then why would it win in Congressional races?  That's lunacy.  This is a case of Republicans "putting up" with conservatives/Tea Party members when they deliver them wins DESPITE what the establishment does.

Second of all, the article says it's no big deal that Hussein appoints a liberal to the Court.  Whaaaaaaaaaa?  I mean, the Supreme Court and the morons liberal activists there are perhaps the most dangerous form of government.  Look at how the judiciary just slaps down stuff in California that people pass by referendum.  Or how they eliminate property rights in Connecticut.  All we need is someone like Sotomayor or Kagan and they get forty years until they look like Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg.  That's decades of stupidity like Breyer "finding stuff in foreign laws" to base his opinions on.

I'm a bit puzzled, If you aren't voting, (your quote "I'm not voting.  And here's why.")
then whats your beef if Hussein is elected and does appoint a lib to SCOTUS?
You didn't vote, so you have no right to complain.

Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2012, 03:27:01 PM
Where are you hearing such nonsense, like the country doesn't want Conservatives?
2010 elections kicked that crap to the curb.
And how do you propose we knock off Ginsberg and Breyer, impeachment?

No, the 2010 elections DIDN'T kick that crap to the curb.  That's the problem.  I'm not saying I don't want conservatism to dominate the Republican party.  I'm saying it DOESN'T.  What's the proof?  Uh ...the entire 2012 Republican primaries?  We had a moderate-at-best Republican installed as our nominee based on "he's the only one who can beat Obama" and a lot of Republicans who openly rejected Santorum's social conservatism.  Is that supposed to inspire confidence in me?  The 2010 elections were great.  But we went from that to somehow buying that people don't want conservatism.  It's not me saying that or even the media -- we gotta stop blaming them when we see Romney winning in state after state.  How is that telling me that Republicans aren't a bunch of namby-pamby losers?

I mean, look at the liberals.  Sure, they're stupid morons and they could never openly run on their beliefs.  But that doesn't stop them from nominating a socialist and PRETENDING he's a moderate.  Republicans nominate a moderate and pretend he's a conservative -- but not too much, or else we'll "scare away" the voters!  Well, guess what?  I'm tired of voting Republican and getting some loser.  If the Republicans want to run a moderate, then let them win with the moderate vote.  OR LOSE.  I hardly care.  What, am I supposed to be happy that instead of racing towards socialism, we're crawling?  Why do we keep getting Liberal versus Liberal Lite in elections?  It's like my choices are Barack Obama or Olympia Snowe.  Why should I vote for retarded Olympia just because she has an (R) behind her name?

Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2012, 05:16:34 PM
I'm a bit puzzled, If you aren't voting, (your quote "I'm not voting.  And here's why.")
then whats your beef if Hussein is elected and does appoint a lib to SCOTUS?
You didn't vote, so you have no right to complain.

Well, here's how I look at things.  Take, for example, 2008.  I didn't vote.  I'm not potentially electing McCain and having him mess up the country with moderatism and having people claim "oh, the Republicans are no different than the Democrats!  Proof!"  And some people say "well, then Obama is your fault!"  Uh, no.  Obama is the fault of the people who voted for him.  I didn't vote for him, therefore everything that occured as a result has nothing to do with me.  I'm not being sarcastic or facetious.  I'm dead serious.  The blame lays at the feet of the people who give us McCain because they're so terrified that the country hated Bush.  That's literally the reason.  I mean, look at 2012.  You'd think that everyone would be going crazy trying to run as a Republican because it's the easiest election you'll ever face, right?  And yet we got ...this field?  Crazy Ron Paul.  Moderate Mitt Romney.  Newt "the era of Reagan is over, but I'm still a conservative trust me" Gingrich.  And Rick Santorum, who isn't perfect but at least is decent.  That's it?  And we're begging Chris "I'm a social moderate but don't tell anyone" Christie to join in?  THAT'S our friggin' field?  Don't make me laugh.

I've always defended the Republican party but it's clear that they're run by morons and incompetents.

Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
I'm not voting.  And here's why.

First of all, I certainly understand the whole "civic duty" argument, so don't worry about that part.

As a conservative, I was strongly backing Santorum as the most conservative candidate.  But it seems that a lot of people, as usual, want a "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" candidate -- at least that was the general vibe I got whenever I discussed politics with colleagues or co-workers.  In short, Santorum "scared" them with his social conservatism.  And the "mainstream" or "establishment" Republican position seemed to be the same, with Romney being the candidate of choice from the start.  Most "establishment" Republicans (and note I specifically didn't say "conservative" Republicans) felt that he would be the best bet to beat Obama.

But, as with McCain, it seems to be a fear on the part of Republicans of conservatism.  In other words, the sentiment seems to be to find a strong moderate so as to attract "independents."  And we were told that Romney would attract the independents and everyone argued that "he's the only one who can beat Obama."  Which is pretty pathetic if you think that it's going to be that tough to beat Obama, right?  I mean, that gives me an insight into your preconceptions about the country: that people generally like what Obama is doing and it's going to be a battle to take him down.  OK, fine.  And what do we get as a response?  Well, in 2008, we got McCain, who is a moderate Republican.  In 2012, we're getting Romney, who nobody can really say what he is.  I mean, he's said specifically that he's not a conservative, but his positions have changed radically depending on what situation he's in.  So basically we've nominated a true "politician."

So what does that have to do with me voting?  Well, for one, I'm not interested in voting for Romney, even as a "vote against Obama."  I didn't vote in 2008, either, for the same reason.  Think of it this way.  If we elected McCain and he did his lame moderate reach-across-the-aisle schtick and the country tanked, everyone would say "see?  That's what happens with Republicans!" even though he would be governing as a centrist.  Happened with Bush, too.  I mean, Bush was good in certain respects, but he also spent like crazy and advocated amnesty for illegals and that's thrown in our face all the time now like "oh, conservatives are for amnesty ...right??"

So I've been told by the party that Romney will be the guy to defeat Obama and that's why he needed to be our candidate and that's why "scary conservatives" needed to be ignored.  Fine.  Have fun beating Obama without this "scary conservative."  I presume you won't need my vote since he'll attract all the moderates and independents.  If he doesn't win, the Republican party brought it on itself.

Just because you don't vote for either Republican or Democrat doesn't mean you have to abstain from voting for anyone. There are a whole bunch of "3rd" party candidates out there to vote for and sure, your one vote won't put any of them into the White House, but if enough of us throw our votes to true Conservative 3rd party candidate, it will get the attention of the Republican Establishment.

There is an old saying, "If you don't vote, you've got no right to complain!". Me, I love to complain! 

-Dr Watt