I look at things more strategically.
We (I) made a mistake electing the Globalist Establishment Man Bush in 2000 because it had to be “anyone but Gore”.
Looking at the history of US presidents, the Democrat elected after the esablishment Republican got progressively worse, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
By extrapolating that data, my question is, who gets elected after Romney, the Anti-Christ?
I’ll stand by my statement, we HAVE to elect a reformer.
OK...let's look at that. A choice was made...and it took a USSC decision to provide Bush with the win. What would have occured if Gore had won?
Looking at the history of US presidents, the Democrat elected after the esablishment Republican got progressively worse, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
Let's be sure to include some of the rino/repub/conserv/tpartyer goofs as well, shall we? Nixon, Bush I, Bush II....
By extrapolating that data, my question is, who gets elected after Romney, the Anti-Christ?
You're assuming rom-knee is going to be elected, yes? Not a sure thing by a country mile...but let's assume you're correct...just for fun.
Who will come after Romney? I don't know. But the dem/lib/prog/pop alternative to Romney in 2012 makes the question moot. For if a Romney, or Palin, or Cain, or anyone else from the rino/repub/conserv/tparty isn't put in office in 2012, there may well be no viable country in 2016 left to worry about.
I’ll stand by my statement, we HAVE to elect a reformer.
I'm all for a reformer in office. WHO??? And what realistic chance do they have of being actually elected? None.
When it comes down to it, the choice in '12 is going to be the stain and his entire regime for the final four years of the great American experiment....or some rino/repub/conserv/tpartyer....
The choice is yours...and ours.