Skip to comments.You can legally vote twice! Here's how:
Posted on 09/23/2011 5:44:03 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
click here to read article
“And you just may survive long enough to figure out a way to stop the madness.”
That is one survival strategy, but it assumes that the bread won’t run out for a long time. In today’s economy, that maybe a poor assumption.
Another survivial strategy is to blow up both sides and form a new 3rd side that won’t take bread from you at all...
And how did that strategy work out when Perot ran under a 3rd party?
From last night, it appears that Fox News wants that, as well as the other lib-media outlets, but the primaries are still months away.
Romney hasn't sealed anything yet and neither has anyone else.
Losing the election is not winning.
We need to stop the chaos NOW!
This country will not survive a second term of Obama.
Obamacare is destoying this country.
And by how much.
Voting for a minor candidate can leave the Republicans with slim victory against an unpopular Democratic candidate, and make them realize (finally) that they're going to have to do something different.
Or will it take an outright loss to get their attention?
“This country will not survive a second term of Obama.”
Nor will this country survive under a RINO like Romney. Voting in Romney will not stop the chaos NOW! There’s no guarantee that Romney would lead to repeal Obamacare - he’s a flip-flopper and liberal at his core.
If Obama were to beat Romney, then hopefully a new Tea Party would emerge and conservatives would flee the GOP to leave it as the establishment, liberal-lite party. Then, the new Tea Party could actually institute real change.
First off, in this country there is one predominant party - the Government Party.
It has two subsidiary wings, that which we popularly know as the Democrats and the Republicans.
In the past, they have vied with each other to take turns running the apparatus of the government, with marginally differing views on how to do that. But they have all essentially pushed the same things, the same ideas.
In the past, we have called these “elections”.
So the first point is, that exercising your franchise is a patriotic duty beyond question is a nice thought, but I remind you in many dictatorships of varying flavors around the world voter participation is often above 95%, many times higher than that.
Next up, if somehow Romney is the Republican candidate, then the choice becomes whether you want to plunge head first into the swirling waters of socialism (Obama) or commit suicide on the installment plan (Romney).
Again, the “lesser evil” is still evil.
So the stratagem now becomes insuring that Romney or the likes is not the nominee. That is why we have primaries. This is where the first real blood-fest will occur, where we will see if there is anything to the perception that the Republican Establishment is, in it's current incarnation, in it's death throes.
Don't want Romney? Start working now to insure it's not him.
As for me, personally, I remember his old man. Met him once, briefly, in ‘68. Didn't like him at all, and I've always wondered just how far the acorn falls from the tree.
I don't like Mitt, either.
But returning to the original premise of this post, the Government Party, with it's attendant sycophantic propaganda apparatus, masquerading as the press corp, finally feels it's grip on the country in trouble with the emergence of the Tea Party (and rightly so!).
That cannot be permitted under any circumstance!
Personally, I don't give a damn about the Democrats, and neither should you. Beyond redemption, they can go to hell in their own way (and they most assuredly will). It's the Republican party we must commandeer, as they are, historically, most akin to our thoughts.
The day of the “big tent” is over. Having a “conservative” party brim full of liberals is a redundancy we can no longer afford. Liberalism is, as P. J. O'Rourke once said, Communism one drink at a time. Why should we have that in our midst? That's what the other party is for.
Just as in 1964, we do not have the press on our side. But unlike ‘64, we have the far-reaching effects of the Internet that can negate the former power of the liberal press. Additionally, there are many, many personal communication opportunities that exist today that were not available then.
Also, the corruptive influence of “public education” is far more advanced today than it was in the mid ‘60’s, and our own efforts at “consumer education” must be trebled because of this. We must become aggressive about this.
By recognizing every communication with the public, no matter how small that public is, is an opportunity to educate. And by refuting smears, a favorite Alinsky-ite tactic of the left, with truth, and doing it loudly and aggressively.
Candidates like Palin and Cain would have no problem jousting with the mainstream press, and coming out ahead on it.
The point there is, we don't have to meet these guys on their terms, not when we can meet them on ours!
When thinking of deciding our country's future, and hence the future of our posterity, there can be no mistake - the Tea Party, or whatever it evolves in to, is at this juncture in history our last, best hope. This is the vehicle we should utilize to tap the widespread anger and angst that exists out there.
The Republican party as it is presently constituted is as good as dead.
The message conveyed must be unequivocal: This time, America really does want a choice, and not an echo.
The existing Tea Party is not a registered 3rd party that gets its own candidates on ballots....
I’d like to see conservatives leave the GOP to RINOs like McCain, Romney, etc., for another real party and not some caucus.
A win is win and knowbody pays attention to a loser.
A loser can come back a be a winner (like Nixon).
Sending a message may give you a little influence, but not much.
You need to win, but you only have one vote. You need to work to get your candidate elected, but don’t take the football home if your candidate doesn’t win. Play the game with the best quarterback that the majority supports.
Liberals win because they stick together irrespective if their particular group is getting all they want.
Conservatives need to stick together. Conservatives have too many independent thinkers (that’s good) but each person want it their way and not willing to take small gains and work together for the greater good. The Tea Party is changing that, but they continue to need to convince others.
They have an influence, but they are not in control.
There are strenghts and weaknesses in each Republican candidate, but I will support the Republican nominee.
I hope we get a better nominee than Rommney, but he would be better than the alternative. I could see Rommney as a better President than Bush.
A Conservative Party will have varying degrees of conservatism, some of which you may not like.
You need to stand on principle and convince others to share those principles.
It would be better to work within the Republican Party and chnage it. You need to understand that there will always be RINOS, CINOS, etc. in any party. Some people are unwilling to do the right thing or can’t determine the right thing.
What are you doing to change the GOP to follow conservative principles?
“Working together” goes both ways. I, and many more here have bitten the bullet many times in the spirit of “working together” and the only ones getting anything out of this deal seem to be the partisan Republicans, and then don’t seem one bit interested in having anything to do with us once they’ve got that vote. It’s getting pretty damned old.
No thanks. I vote in the primaries and in the local elections for conservative candidates.
If the GOP nominates a liberal like McCain for president again they will not get my support. I vote on principle, not on party loyalty.
I never said you did endorse Obama Jr. Can you answer my question now? Even better, lemme phrase it simply. How does voting for obama’s lil brother help shape this country, assuming you disagree with Obama.
Boehner, is that you?
You sound just like a typical establishment Republican, who’s willing to sacrifice principles over paltry gains.
Is there going to be anyting to this argument more substantial than the standard list of truisms?
I think we've all probably seen them all before, trotted out right before every election.
Yes. The math is correct and explains a lot of the candidates’ and parties’ behaviors.
You have a base that won’t vote for other candidate no matter what. If you sacrifice (lose) one vote from the base, to gain a vote from the “mushy middle” from your opponent, you gain TWO votes - your opponent loses one, and you gain one - for a net gain of one vote.
That’s why both parties routinely screw their base. The “mushy middle” vote is more valuable.
Interesting. You equate a conscious decision to withhold approval of a given candidate with apathetic disengagement.
Do you not check to see what fillings are in the sandwich before biting it?
I’m not exactly sure what you are wanting me to say. You have obviously labeled a specific person as Obama’s lil brother (I have no idea who this is as you came up with the handle) and I assume that you mean Romney by Obama Jr per the previous replies to me. If you feel that EVERYONE currently running for president is Obama’s lil brother or Obama Jr then maybe you could vote a write-in of your choice. Just a suggestion. That’s what it is available for.
I see several candidates whom I like and do not see as Obama jr or his lil brother. My point and my answer to your question is that we must not just lay down and not vote because the candidate we support does not get nominated, if that should happen. Obama must be defeated and we know his supporters will be voting.
Huh? I just said if you decide not to vote, you lose your right to bitch and moan.
I've got a neighbor that is constantly complaining about Obama. I asked him if he voted for Obama or McCain and he said, "Hell, no, I couldn't vote for either one of them so I didn't vote at all!"
Well, guess what, pal? Anything you say after that falls on deaf ears. If you can't take it upon yourself to cast a vote, ANY VOTE... FOR ANYBODY, in the election... You lose your right to bitch and moan. If you throw away your right to be heard at the ballot box, you're just blowing smoke and you throw away your right to be heard, period.
Call it what you want, but the truth is it's lazy and pathetic.
The coming election has much to do with what is going to happen on the SCOTUS.
I hear you you, but some states have laws that they won’t count write in votes. So, what would be the point of voting for ANYBODY as you suggest, even if it’s a write-in when that vote won’t be counted anyway.
You are entitled to your opinion, FRiend.
Nice try at framing the dabate so that conservatives stay on the R plantation, no matter what form of excrement sandwich we are served.
You’re not voting on principle. I dare say you don’t even understand the meaning of the word.
When November 2012 rolls around, you have a choice between Obama and the Republican. Nobody else has a chance of being elected. If you do not vote for the Republican, then you are the Union soldier who refused to fire his weapon at the Confederate soldier. You can say it’s “principle” but a conservative who does not vote for the more conservative candidate is helping the more liberal candidate. Those are the facts.
You may now resume your implicit support of Obama.
And Sarah Palin will pick a solid conservative.
Please - you go on and vote for your RINO if you want to. Your analogy of the civil war is pathetic. There’s hardly any difference between Romney and Obama, so don’t try to paint some herioc war picture as if voting for Romney is the equivalent of ending slavery. How can you say Romney is the “more conservative” candidate - that’s a crock.
The facts are the GOP is doomed if it keeps nominating liberals. The GOP needs a wakeup call that it can’t take conservatives for granted. It needs to fight on principle and not compromise so often.
You may now resume your continuous support of the liberal-lite, loser GOP party. What you fail to see is that a Romney presidency won’t be any better than an Obama presidency in the long run.
I’m sorry I asked a very simple question and you’ve proven unable to even figure out the question. I just cant deal with stupid people, and you’re it. Thanks anyway.
You have a nice day.
If you choose to stay home or not to cast your vote in such a way as to make it most likely that Zero will be out in 2012, then you are part of the problem!
“If the best way to influence the outcome favorably is to vote for a jerk, then you vote for the jerk.”
What if the jerk is no better then Zero? So, you get Zero out, but now you have the jerk who doesn’t do anything to advance the country in the proper direction.
If you vote for Zero or the jerk then you are part of the problem!
You have no idea what I’m saying.
By the way, if you honestly think there is “hardly any difference” between Romney and Obama (or McCain and Obama) then you are simply incapable of logical thought.
If you continue to whine about it, then you deserve Pres Zero.
I would have liked a better candidate than McCain the loser, but he would have been better than Zero. I worked harder to elect Bush, but I still voted for McCain. We had a much high turnout for Bush than McCain in a very Republican county.
So you think you will not get a McCain in a conservative party?
Get a life. Life is not fair. Put your trust in God.
The whining started with the complaining about people voting for third parties.
You're sitting there telling me not to waste my vote "sending a message". If nobody sends them a message, tell me how they're ever going to get the message.
By winning. Getting enough like minded people to support your candidate.
Prayer and asking for God’s help for all to follow God’s laws will help also.
Voting for 3rd parties is a wasted vote. I don’t care if Liberals want to waste their vote or not show up at the polls.
We had a 98% turnout of registered voters for GWB (67%+)and a 89% turnout for McCain (62%).
Republicans (conservatives) need to organize and get out the vote. Conservatives can win, but they need to work for it.
Feh! You just finished telling me I need to support whoever it is the Republicans put out there, whether it's "my candidate" or not.
You talk out of both sides of your maouth at once.
That's not the case with the current lineup. Any of them is better than Zero.
In fact my neighbor has a natural born American dog, who is over 35 in dog years and who, in addition to his natural born talent for creating shovel-ready jobs, could execute the office of president better than the incumbent.
Romney is not substantially different than Zero as far as his policy positions. So, he would continue the same liberal mindset that is destroying this country, and what’s worse is that Republicans would get blamed for his disastrous, liberal agenda.
No thanks, you can keep your RINOs.
I do know what you’re saying...you’re just wrong. You advocate choosing the lesser of 2 evils and not remove Obama at all costs. I’m saying I’d love to get rid of Obama too, but if his replacement is another liberal then we really haven’t made much progress.
If you think there are substantial differences between Romney and Obama then you are simply incapable of logical thought and are a RINO lover.
I never said there was hardly no difference between McCain and Obama, and I did vote for McCain. Romney is a different story.
No. You are not using any logic or reason. Think.
I said work and get your candidate nominated, but if he doesn’t win, then don’t run away and waste your vote.
“...but if he doesnt win, then dont run away and waste your vote.”
A vote for Romney is a wasted vote...
I advocate voting for the Republican, whoever that might be, precisely BECAUSE it means removing Obama at all costs. I do not trust any Democrat. We did not know in 2008 how bad Obama would be and McCain was my dead-last choice. McCain has absolutely no redeeming value. You know what? I would’ve crawled on broken glass to vote for him. I don’t know if Romney will get the nomination, but if he does I’ll crawl on broken glass to vote for him also.
I have no honest idea how you can make the suggestion that Romney would govern in any way like Obama has. There would be no healthcare bill crushing private industry. There would be no mountain of regulations crushing private industry. Gas prices would almost certainly not be as high as they are. Would we still have debt problems? Most likely. They are not even remotely close to being the same. Not at all.
Look, the simple truth is this: If you’re part of the conservative base and you don’t vote Republican, you’re helping Obama.
Sarah has already made her declaration of ABO. What would you do if she endorsed Romney? I know the chances are very remote, but given the hypothetical, what would you do then?
She WILL endorse him if he gets the nomination. She was very flattering toward him in her second book. But I’m voting for Palin this time around no matter who endorses who. I endorse Palin, that’s what matters to me, you betcha.
Proudest vote I ever cast—
Write-in for Reagan in ‘76.
“I have no honest idea how you can make the suggestion that Romney would govern in any way like Obama has. There would be no healthcare bill crushing private industry. There would be no mountain of regulations crushing private industry. Gas prices would almost certainly not be as high as they are.”
Your analysis of a potential Romney presidency is flawed because you assume that he will personally be responsible for enacting those things you desire. The president is responsible for passing bills, leading the military, appointing federal judges, foreign policy, and using the bully pulpit.
Romney would be an improvement in foreign policy, and perhaps as commander in chief. However, he can’t be trusted on domestic issues. He’d most likely not lead to repeal Obamacare, he originally supported the stimulus bill, and TARP. Even if congress were to pass bills decreasing regulations, it’s not a given he would sign them into law given his record, particularly his global warming stance. What makes you think gas prices would be lower if he were elected? He’s pro gay marriage, pro gun control, and pro abortion, favors limits on campaign finances and appointed liberal justices while in MA.
I’m tired of voting for any Republican thinking it will be an improvement, when these liberal RINOs, screw up any momentum we may have won.
1) He sure as hell has been running on doing everything
possible to eliminate Obama’s health care bill.
2) TARP, while a problem, is not a huge problem compared to others. Additionally, support of the original stimulus bill is completely irrelevant now because of the mountain of debt that has been accumulated since then.
3) Are you honestly suggesting that Romney would side with partisan Democrats on business and environmental regulations? That makes no sense at all.
4) Gas prices would be lower because Romney would not be throwing up roadblocks to domestic drilling wherever and whenever possible.
5) I don’t care about gay marriage. In a perfect world, we’re absolutely set as a country if gay marriage is our biggest problem. It does not even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as our real problems.
6) Romney has not been “pro gun control” for quite a while now.
7) Romney has not been “pro abortion” for quite a while now.
8) No justice Romney could have appointed would be anywhere near as liberal and unqualified as Sotomayor.
If a Republican president does not lead effectively, he can be removed. I absolutely cannot grasp the logic of a) assuming a Republican is not conservative enough and thus b) we’d be better off with a Marxist leading us.
A vote for Romney is a wasted vote...
One good reason that it is not a wasted vote:
Obamacare will destroy USA, and Romney has agreed that he will kill Obamacare.
1) He’s a flip-flopper - I don’t care what he says now, he supported government mandated healthcare - look at his record not his words
2) He defended TARP and the stimulus, which is relevant, because it means he would likely consider supporting another round of stimulus in the future. Your point makes no sense.
3) Yes - he believes in global warming and would likely follow EPA recommendations on environmental regs
4) Bull - see above
5) Just pointing out how liberal he is
6) how do you know he’s not for gun control? He’s a flip-flopper - how do you know what he really believes? He has no core principles and changes based upon the political climate
7) same as above - he’s a flip-flopper, worse than Kerry, why do take him at his most recent word?
8) Bull - his appointments in MA were very liberal and believe in a “living” constitution
9) What are you talking about? How do you remove a sitting president? He would be marginally better than a full blown Marxist, so in the short term he would be better. However, it would just be prolonging the same issues we face. We need drastic changes to move this country in the right direction, and Romney and Establishment GOP would go along with all the same crap that got us where we are.
For the millionth time....Romney is a lying scumbag that will say anything to get elected...Why do trust anything he says now? He’s a flip-flopper and his record says he won’t repeal Obamacare.
Actually, this is the first time you've used the phrase "get your candidate nominated". And I think you're still leaving something out. What you really mean is "Work and get your candidate nominated by the Republican Party.
You might actually believe that's the only option a conservative can have, or you might just be partisan Republican trying to convice me it's the only choice I can have. Not enough information yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.