I didn’t intend for this to deteriorate into a name-calling exercise as you have done by calling me “shallow, lazy, and arrogant” when I just asked you to be realistic.
Just answer the question:
“Assuming one of these two will be your next Senator from California, which one would you choose:
Boxer ________
Fiorina _______
If you choose to NOT vote for Fiorina (as a vote against Boxer) our of so-called principle, well, then you’re allowing someone much worse to win (Boxer).
What’s so hard to understand about this?
I’m not being arrogant or lazy in this analysis. This is the cold reality.
Then notion that somehow if you vote for a non-RINO as a “protest vote,” yet that non-RINO has zero chance of winning in California, you do the right thing and that is to vote for the RINO over the Marxist.
Perhaps this is an issue of stubborn pride (in your case), but in life and in business, we have to make practical choices, given the realities at hand.
I can only assume from your suggestion that people don’t vote for Fiorina is that you wouldn’t mind having Boxer do another term. Or you find that LESS objectionable than Fiorina.
That’s sad, dude, because that kind of stubbornness (the so-called “protest vote”) is partly what helped allow the usurper, President Narcissus in the WH.
Meant to say:
“The notion that somehow if you vote for a non-RINO as a “protest vote,” yet that non-RINO has zero chance of winning in California is totally flawed.
Instead, you do the right thing and that is to vote for the RINO over the Marxist.
You have a poor memory for what happened to FairOpinion.
Answer: None of the above. I'll vote for Whitman, but not for Fiorina.
If you choose to NOT vote for Fiorina (as a vote against Boxer) our of so-called principle, well, then you’re allowing someone much worse to win (Boxer).
Not enough worse.
What’s so hard to understand about this?
False premises are easy to understand.
I’m not being arrogant or lazy in this analysis. This is the cold reality.
Yes, you are, but it's because you have apparently no recollection of the same games played during the recall here. DoughtyOne, care to educate this gentleman?
Perhaps this is an issue of stubborn pride (in your case), but in life and in business, we have to make practical choices, given the realities at hand.
You present a false choice. Typical.
I can only assume from your suggestion that people don’t vote for Fiorina is that you wouldn’t mind having Boxer do another term. Or you find that LESS objectionable than Fiorina.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a borderline push.
That’s sad, dude, because that kind of stubbornness (the so-called “protest vote”) is partly what helped allow the usurper, President Narcissus in the WH.
Poppycock. It was the machinations of the GOP that nominated "electable" John McCain. Those gambits included everything from allowing Democrat crossovers to the Fred Thompson fan dance. The only reason he wasn't beat by ten more points was Sarah Palin.
No, it was the "Schwarzenegger is a fiscal conservative," "A vote for McClintock is a vote for Bustamante," BS that got us in this mess in California, when Tom would have beat Bustamante one-on-one. It's the same game you're selling me now. A lot of FReepers fell for that bullcrap and regret it to this day. Schwarzenegger is the only reason Jerry Brown has a prayer today, just as "moderate Republican" hand across the aisle George Bush, who never vetoed a single spending bill is why we have the Teleprompter Queen. RINOs are deadly to conservatism. Nixon wrecked the GOP for a decade while Wilson was the downfall in California. It's happened over and over, and here you are selling the same garbage. For the likes of you we'd never have seen Ronald Reagan.