Short answer: No we may not.
It is a source of constant amazment to me how many people on this conservative website need to be reminded that, in a two-party system, any failure to vote for the least undesirable candidate is mathmatically equivalent to a vote for the MOST undesirable candidate.
The whole point of this primary season is to annoint the most likely to suceed "not Romney" candidate so we don't end up with a McCain/Obama sequel. Thus far we on FR are doing a very good among ourselves ensuring that Romney will end up with the nomination.
That being said, if it comes down to it, best to simply take Queen Victoria's advice: Spread you legs, close your eyes, lie back, and think of England.
You don’t have to worry. If Romney is the nominee, there WILL be a third party. It would probably happen with Newt as well. People will want an alternative.
I can’t find in the constitution where it says we are a 2 party system. Where is it?
IF mitt is nominated... the republican party will no longer represent a positive force for America... she will be a second progressive party.
There are just too many reasons why some of us can never vote for romney. romney is a baby killer... I will not vote for a pro abortion communist... and mitt can lie and flip flop all that he wants... he is still a liar... once a liar... always a liar.
LLS
“That being said, if it comes down to it, best to simply take Queen Victoria’s advice: Spread you legs, close your eyes, lie back, and think of England. “
We quit taking British Royalty advice over 200 years ago.
I refuse. It is what they have expected us to do for decades (been voting since Goldwater). They bank on taking advantage of us. Not this time. I WILL NEVER EVER vote for Romney. And no conservative I’ve spoken to will.
If they wanna scare me with Hussein, so be it. STILL not gonna vote for Romney.
So true. I no longer think FR as a conservative website but rather an Evangelical website. I still love the interesting selection of links posted by members but the discussions that follow are often offensive, immature and hateful. These comments from anonymous members has really killed the mood here. I prefer the format of Facebook with people posting under their true identities in a way that fosters personal responsibility. As all true conservatives know, personal liberty cannot exist without personal responsibility.
“any failure to vote for the least undesirable candidate is mathmatically equivalent to a vote for the MOST undesirable candidate.”
So very true. But don’t waste your time fighting the suicidal groupthink on this thread!
So what you are saying is you will vote for Romney.
Thereby illustrating the biggest coup of statism: It will get many self-described conservatives to vote for the things they stand against.
Romney is for: forced acceptance of open homosexuality in the military as well as in civil life; take peaceful actions to reject open homosexuality in either place, and you will be prosecuted.
Romney is for government intrusion into your health care choices and how you arrange them through employers, and how you an employer provide (or not) them to your employees.
Romney buys into the hoax that we can and must gage and manipulate global climate in order to "be responsible," and thereby ENSURES thorough government intrusion, via environmentalism, into both the production and consumption of energy.
Romney has a track record that indicates he'd be no more reliable for a SCJ appointment than any Clinton. It would be a total crap-shoot as to whether he'd appoint a decent judge to uphold the CONSTITUTION.
Some people are so narrowly and fearfully focused on what they want to vote against, that they fail utterly to perceive what they are voting FOR.
A vote for Romney would be a vote for all the things so many of us stand against.
I'll pass.
Nominate Rommney if you want to, and I believe that you do. But when you do, it will take one less vote for obama to be re-elected. You can believe the Republican bullshit that Rommney is the only one that can beat obama if you choose. But the truth of the matter is that he will get less votes than Mc Cain would have gotten if he had not picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin at least doubled Mc Cain's vote total.
Thanks for the sane post, but these kinds of threads are like watching a game of Pong with both paddles fixed in place—”I’m staying home!” “Then you’re giving Obama a second term!” “No, the Republican party is for nominating Romney!”
We are frequently given unappetizing, poor, or awful choices in life, but as adults we look at the possible outcomes of our actions or lack of such and act in a mature manner.
It’s simple—by withholding a vote from Romney, one is allowing one Obama vote to go unanswered.