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 (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! :wink:
-Dr Watt
Quote from: Dr_Watt on April 21, 2012, 06:05:40 PM
There is an old saying, "If you don't vote, you've got no right to complain!". Me, I love to complain! :wink:
-Dr Watt
That's me as well. I try to spend more than my 2 cents.......
Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 05:49:17 PM
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?
But it was you that said it, I just called you on it, lets just not repeat it, since its not true.
What happened was the GOP in concert killed off the Conservatives early in the race.
Of course the base not being happy with the remaining RINO running, began killing off the rest, which left us with mitten.
It was all part of a well planned strategy by the powers that be"RINO" in the GOP.
Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 05:56:01 PM
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.
I take it you didn't vote at all?
I vote for one reason, to further the conservative agenda, POTUS is irrelevant unless he has conservatives in both houses to push his ass to do what we, the constituents demand.
If you aren't voting in local conservatives and pushing them to run for higher office, then yes, you are to blame for our slide into socialism.
We need to stop the RINO and their constant capitulation to the leftists, its a no win situation.
So get out and vote in Nov, even if your guy doesn't have a chance.
If enough people did, we just might make a difference, Hell, we unseated a shitload of RINO and Marxists in 2010.
Yeah I'm voting. I'm more enthused about Romney than McCain. Not that that is saying much.But I am tired of this.
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2012, 07:10:13 PM
What happened was the GOP in concert killed off the Conservatives early in the race.
But that's not what happened. I mean, sure, you can argue -- and I'd agree -- that the media created false stories about how everyone supported Romney and the GOP all endorsed Romney. Absolutely. But at the end of the day, there are also a lot of Republicans who voted for Romney. True? Yes, true. And why was that? Because -- even if they were tricked into thinking this -- they thought that a conservative would "turn off" the country and get Obama re-elected. I've talked to lots of people who think that way, mostly because they're the tired old "fiscal conservative, social liberal" robots.
I don't get why we're arguing over this, actually. I'd be thrilled if the Republicans had nominated Santorum. But they didn't and now I'm not helping them. It's like you tell me "hey, even if they give you Bob Dole and John McCain and Mitt Romney, if you don't keep donating to the RNC then you're the problem!" I'm quite fine with the Republicans losing if they keep doing this. As a conservative, I subscribe to the notion that actions have consequences. If the GOP thinks they can win with a RINO, enjoy. But if they assumed that conservatives are going to robotically help out, that's their false assumption. Nobody "must" do anything they don't want to.
I'm more apt to influence Romney and his agendas then I ever would be with Obama. Let's put it this way, we know what we've got with Obama, would I choose to sit back and allow another four years of that? I'll take my chances with Romney.
Quote from: republicans2 on April 21, 2012, 09:22:25 PM
I'm more apt to influence Romney and his agendas then I ever would be with Obama. Let's put it this way, we know what we've got with Obama, would I choose to sit back and allow another four years of that? I'll take my chances with Romney.
Right, I heard that reasoning in 2008, too. My problem with that is that the damage done by a McCain presidency could potentially be worse than an Obama one. What do I mean by that? Well, say McCain wins and he's not going to do Obamacare and we're all thrilled. Right? But he is a "maverick" and he raises taxes and rails against corporations and goes for gay marriage or whatever. Now, even if the country is not "worse off" than it was with an Obama presidency by 2012, you've set up decades of losing because now everyone goes "oh, so THAT'S what Republicans will give us." When Obama won, at least it semi-purged the Republican party. For years we had to put up with RINOs like Arlen Specter. When Obama took over, they either jumped ship or were ousted because voters wanted "real" Democrats, not RINOs. We got rid of lots of trash in that election, even if it put Democrats in power.
My view is one of cynicism. The voters get what they ask for. And if they're uneducated, ill-informed voters, that's not my problem. The voters brought in Obama and then got lost jobs and continued economic malaise. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic? Why? They got what they wanted.
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2012, 03:27:01 PM
And how do you propose we knock off Ginsberg and Breyer, impeachment?
Aw, you want to limit this to legal means, instead of Chicago Rules?
Drown them with holy water. Don't mind the smell of damp brimstone.
You don't have to literally "knock off" liberal Justices. What I mean is that Ginsberg is like a mummy. You can tell she's about to drop. It's like when Sotomayor was put in place. It was a liberal judge who was like "gaaaaah, I'm not going to die while Bush is in office ...hork!!!" As soon as Obama was elected, they were like "arrrgh!! OH GOD SWEET RELEASE!!" and died. If a liberal is in power when a seat opens, it's game over. Period.
Oh I plan on voting I'm going to vote like a democrat early and often. :ttoung:
Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 09:30:57 PM
Right, I heard that reasoning in 2008, too. My problem with that is that the damage done by a McCain presidency could potentially be worse than an Obama one. What do I mean by that? Well, say McCain wins and he's not going to do Obamacare and we're all thrilled. Right? But he is a "maverick" and he raises taxes and rails against corporations and goes for gay marriage or whatever. Now, even if the country is not "worse off" than it was with an Obama presidency by 2012, you've set up decades of losing because now everyone goes "oh, so THAT'S what Republicans will give us." When Obama won, at least it semi-purged the Republican party. For years we had to put up with RINOs like Arlen Specter. When Obama took over, they either jumped ship or were ousted because voters wanted "real" Democrats, not RINOs. We got rid of lots of trash in that election, even if it put Democrats in power.
My view is one of cynicism. The voters get what they ask for. And if they're uneducated, ill-informed voters, that's not my problem. The voters brought in Obama and then got lost jobs and continued economic malaise. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic? Why? They got what they wanted.
You may live in the what ifs if you wish. The reality is that Obama has and continues to do massive damage to our economy and society. Wait if you must for your ideal candidate but I choose to have a say and will take each battle as they come. If I come up against two assailants with no way out, I'm going to pit myself against the one that gives me my best chance. Rolling up in a ball is not an options or me. I'm not a Romney fan but I will be if for just one day. I'm voting.
Yes, I will vote in November.
Do I view Romney as the perfect candidate? No.
But unless something unexpected happens he will be the nominee and while he is hardly the type of conservative that I would prefer, I think he is a much better option than another 4 years of Obama.
Quote from: rich_t on April 22, 2012, 07:15:15 AM
Yes, I will vote in November.
Do I view Romney as the perfect candidate? No.
But unless something unexpected happens he will be the nominee and while he is hardly the type of conservative that I would prefer, I think he is a much better option than another 4 years of Obama.
Welcome to the forum Rich and I agree, its akin to voting for death by slow crushing, or a billion needle pricks.
Ill take the billion pricks, they are small and annoying and take a longtime, unlike the one big crushing Marxist prick. :wink:
Quote from: C-B-M on April 21, 2012, 09:07:37 PM
But that's not what happened. I mean, sure, you can argue -- and I'd agree -- that the media created false stories about how everyone supported Romney and the GOP all endorsed Romney. Absolutely. But at the end of the day, there are also a lot of Republicans who voted for Romney. True? Yes, true. And why was that? Because -- even if they were tricked into thinking this -- they thought that a conservative would "turn off" the country and get Obama re-elected. I've talked to lots of people who think that way, mostly because they're the tired old "fiscal conservative, social liberal" robots.
I don't get why we're arguing over this, actually. I'd be thrilled if the Republicans had nominated Santorum. But they didn't and now I'm not helping them. It's like you tell me "hey, even if they give you Bob Dole and John McCain and Mitt Romney, if you don't keep donating to the RNC then you're the problem!" I'm quite fine with the Republicans losing if they keep doing this. As a conservative, I subscribe to the notion that actions have consequences. If the GOP thinks they can win with a RINO, enjoy. But if they assumed that conservatives are going to robotically help out, that's their false assumption. Nobody "must" do anything they don't want to.
Thats what I said, at the end of the day, after they had knocked off the Conservative competition, thats when people started gravitating towards Mitten.
Look back at his poll numbers during that time, he was stuck at around 30% approval, that approval never came from the base, the Conservative base, the Tea party.
Whats more, is he is still not getting the base excited, they just know they are out of options.
I have yet to count Newt out, the base will show that they hate Mitten so much so, there will be a protest move to back newt, whether it will be enough to make any difference, we'll have to wait and see.
Quote from: rich_t on April 22, 2012, 07:15:15 AM
Yes, I will vote in November.
Do I view Romney as the perfect candidate? No.
But unless something unexpected happens he will be the nominee and while he is hardly the type of conservative that I would prefer, I think he is a much better option than another 4 years of Obama.
Welcome Rich. Jeez, my wife isn't perfect but if she was, would that guarantee I'd be any happier? BTW, kudos to her for putting up with me!
Quote from: republicans2 on April 22, 2012, 06:02:14 AM
You may live in the what ifs if you wish. The reality is that Obama has and continues to do massive damage to our economy and society.
I know, but that's what amuses me. I mean, yes, it angers me, too, but it also amuses me to no end. I mean, there are lots of people who say "the uninformed shouldn't be allowed to vote!" I'm one of those proponents. At least KNOW what you're voting for, even if we disagree. So it makes me giggle that Obama sucks so much and people voted for him and now they're like "whaaaaaa??" I'm sitting at home going "BWAH HA HA HA HA!!" Some moron voted for him thinking he'd create jobs and now they're unemployed and their house was foreclosed upon ...that's hilarious to me. You get what you vote for.
And in the same way, if we continue to vote for RINOs or moderates or Obama Lites, then we get what WE vote for. I'd rather get full-blown Obama who destroys the country and makes people realize what liberals do than get half-assed McCain or Romney who just makes the country say "all politicians are the same!!" And if Obama destroys the country and people still keep voting for him, then they don't really deserve saving.
I'm very pragmatic about that.
Quote from: C-B-M on April 22, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
I know, but that's what amuses me. I mean, yes, it angers me, too, but it also amuses me to no end. I mean, there are lots of people who say "the uninformed shouldn't be allowed to vote!" I'm one of those proponents. At least KNOW what you're voting for, even if we disagree. So it makes me giggle that Obama sucks so much and people voted for him and now they're like "whaaaaaa??" I'm sitting at home going "BWAH HA HA HA HA!!" Some moron voted for him thinking he'd create jobs and now they're unemployed and their house was foreclosed upon ...that's hilarious to me. You get what you vote for.
And in the same way, if we continue to vote for RINOs or moderates or Obama Lites, then we get what WE vote for. I'd rather get full-blown Obama who destroys the country and makes people realize what liberals do than get half-assed McCain or Romney who just makes the country say "all politicians are the same!!" And if Obama destroys the country and people still keep voting for him, then they don't really deserve saving.
I'm very pragmatic about that.
It's for that reason alone I'm glad we got saddled with a Marxist, we were headed down that road anyway, its just that his accelerated plan woke the idiots up to what the lefts end goals were for the country.
The RINO have been capitulating to the left for decades, which is why the base is so pissed off and will be voting in Nov and taking back both houses and most likely the WH.
Another 30 years of the track we were on would have put us exactly where Hussein wanted us anyway, maybe now we have a chance to get the train on the Right track.
Quote from: C-B-M on April 22, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
I know, but that's what amuses me. I mean, yes, it angers me, too, but it also amuses me to no end. I mean, there are lots of people who say "the uninformed shouldn't be allowed to vote!" I'm one of those proponents. At least KNOW what you're voting for, even if we disagree. So it makes me giggle that Obama sucks so much and people voted for him and now they're like "whaaaaaa??" I'm sitting at home going "BWAH HA HA HA HA!!" Some moron voted for him thinking he'd create jobs and now they're unemployed and their house was foreclosed upon ...that's hilarious to me. You get what you vote for.
And in the same way, if we continue to vote for RINOs or moderates or Obama Lites, then we get what WE vote for. I'd rather get full-blown Obama who destroys the country and makes people realize what liberals do than get half-assed McCain or Romney who just makes the country say "all politicians are the same!!" And if Obama destroys the country and people still keep voting for him, then they don't really deserve saving.
I'm very pragmatic about that.
There's nothing hilarious about
anyone losing their home, whether they voted for Obama or not. I don't find anything amusing about it and it's says a lot about you that you are enjoying other people's pain.
If you are waiting for the perfect candidate then you'll never vote. Actually, you're one of the ones that put Obama in office. John McCain wasn't conservative enough, Romney is not conservative enough...
Sit at home and let Obama be re-elected and enjoy yourself laughing at others misfortune.
I don't have the ideal conservative to vote for either, but I'll never sit and home on my condescending principles and just hand it over to Obama without my vote being counted.
Quote from: Holly on April 22, 2012, 01:01:39 PM
There's nothing hilarious about anyone losing their home, whether they voted for Obama or not. I don't find anything amusing about it and it's says a lot about you that you are enjoying other people's pain.
No, there is something hilarious. You may get all indignant about it, but all it says about me is that I understand that actions have consequences. It's rather pathetic to see grown adults who don't understand the free market system or who act like children. They don't have to listen to anything I say, but they do have to listen when reality knocks on the door. That's grand entertainment for me.
Quote from: Holly on April 22, 2012, 01:01:39 PMActually, you're one of the ones that put Obama in office. John McCain wasn't conservative enough, Romney is not conservative enough...
That's right. They aren't. I didn't put Obama in office. People in the Republican "mainstream" decided that a moderate was the way to go and that would lead to victory. Sad face now. As I said, actions have consequences.
See, point is that we can sit around here and debate all day and night. This is what liberals do. They're great at classroom debates. But you implement their policies in the real world and see what happens and it's quite hilarious. The moderate Republicans had a great theory about how to win victory -- too bad reality stepped in. Notice a trend here?
It's great that Republicans get to nominate a moderate like they wanted and then turn around when he loses and blame OTHERS. Sounds like a liberal thing to do. I mean, me getting pregnant is not the issue -- the issue is you won't let me get an abortion! I'm never to blame!
Anyone but Obie and the kenyan Clown Circus! We need to do all we can to reverse this slide toward socialism.
I like seeing people who voted for Hussein have financial problems. It makes me feel like they have learned a lesson, and they attacked me first by voting for a radical anti-capitalist Marxist, while they (people that I know) knew I am a business owner. That is a slap in the face by them, and it makes me feel better when they are punished as a result of their consequences. To me, it's like watching those shows that come on at the bar when everyone is drunk where people do stupid stuff and get hurt. I don't like seeing someone break their head open, but if they are doing a bunch of skateboarding tricks and try to jump on a rail and fall face first into the ground, then I laugh my ass off. Or those people that mess with dangerous animals and get bit. It is funny to me.
I agree Taxed...sort of like ...... hey guys, watch this...stupid is as stupid does.
Also this goes to show our folks are NOT getting enough math education if they were they would know better, 2+2 does not equal 5
Quote from: taxed on April 22, 2012, 02:31:26 PM
I like seeing people who voted for Hussein have financial problems. It makes me feel like they have learned a lesson, and they attacked me first by voting for a radical anti-capitalist Marxist, while they (people that I know) knew I am a business owner.
It's like with the poor who keep voting for Democrats and they stay poor. They think they're "winning" by making me pay for their lives. But guess what? They're still losing! Tee hee hee! Enjoy the ghetto, losers!