Posted on 08/03/2012 3:44:31 PM PDT by NoLibZone
In the mean time, you have three months to help us find a Conservative alternative that has a chance of winning, so hop to it.:)
“You cannot reason with morons and/or Obama trolls.....”
You are right about that. I was just reading the responses to my posts. Equating Romney with Obama to justify their reasoning. I see no comparison. They are like the 3 monkeys turning a blind eye to the evil doings of Obama the Marxist.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
There is serious error in that logic. If you don’t consider Romney to be your “enemy” as well, then you are horribly deceived.
There is no “enemy of enemy” or “lesser of two evils” here. We have two enemies and two evils. It is a great tradegy.
First, there is a lesser of two evils here. Either Romney will win, or Obama will. Choose your poison.
And there is a big difference. If Obama wins, he will be accountable to no one. He will not have to worry about re-election, and he'll have the MSM on his side.
If Romney wins, the fact that he has an "R" after his name will make it much less likely that the MSM will cover for him, and a Conservative Congress - we need to win there too - will hopefully keep his more leftist policies in check.
There is also the possibility Romney will choose a Conservative running mate, which will also help. That won't happen with Obama.
I'll say to you what I've said to others. Present a Conservative alternative who has a chance of beating Obama in November, and I'm in.
Bend over and enjoy what the CP-e has for you, already
Every time you take the energy to put people off the only candidate who has a chance to throw obama out the obama people applaud.
The greater tragedy is people who chose whining over thinking
Sure you are. (You proved it in post #56, re: Virgil Goode & Tom Hoefling: ...either of them is that they can't win. Demonstrate to me that a vote for either of them is anything other than one less vote Obama needs to win, and I'll reconsider.
I mean what do you want me to do? Post the '08 Obama results for those 15 blue states? Show you the 2012 Summer polls for those 15 blue states?
When it comes to Romney's chances of winning a blue state, you don't seemingly want to deal with the electoral reality of state by state corporate results. Instead, you just want to focus on some fantasy "I'll-pull-this-out-of-nowhere" illusion popular vote scheme & break everything down vote by vote in those blue states.
Yet when it come to measuring Goode or Hoefling's chances of winning, you do take it for granted that they won't win a blue state like Oregon.
Let me give you "breaking news": Mitt Romney won't win Oregon. Virgil Goode, who's on the ballot in Oregon, won't win Oregon, either. NEITHER WILL WIN OREGON. You want to inconsistently take it for granted that Goode won't win Oregon; but not take it for granted that Romney won't win Oregon.
You look with your eyes wide open @ Virgil Goode's chances in Oregon; but when it comes to analyzing Mitt Romney's chances in Oregon, you close them & conclude, "Nope. Not taking the obvious for granted."
That is called exercising a selective fantasy. (You are simply inconsistent)
Parley, if Person A supports a candidate who will discourage or divide conservatives, and that discouragement/division in turn leads to an Obama victory, then Person A is an Obama supporter.
One role of a traitor is to discourage and/or divide the troops.
Yes you are correct. I don’t consider Mitt a Conservative but he is light years better than what now resides in the Oval office.
I mean what do you want me to do? Post the '08 Obama results for those 15 blue states? Show you the 2012 Summer polls for those 15 blue states?
None of that would prove anything, but you already know that. What I want to see is some sign that either of their campaigns is making headway in getting their candidate to a point where they can win this thing, such as national support on a scale of what Obama can count on. Can you include something like that in your next post?
When it comes to Romney's chances of winning a blue state, you don't seemingly want to deal with the electoral reality of state by state corporate results. Instead, you just want to focus on some fantasy "I'll-pull-this-out-of-nowhere" illusion popular vote scheme & break everything down vote by vote in those blue states.
Anyone who checks the post you're replying to will find nothing like that in it. I made myself clear in my reply to you, but I'll repeat. Many of those "liberal" states may become "too close to call" states by November if things don't improve. If that happens, then our votes could very much be in play in those states, so I'm not taking an automatic win for Obama for granted in any of them, including mine.
Yet when it come to measuring Goode or Hoefling's chances of winning, you do take it for granted that they won't win a blue state like Oregon.
OK, demonstrate for me that either of them can win in any state, even the most Conservative.
Let me give you "breaking news": Mitt Romney won't win Oregon.
Let me give you an English lesson. "Mitt Romney won't win Oregon." is a prediction, not "breaking news".
Virgil Goode, who's on the ballot in Oregon, won't win Oregon, either. NEITHER WILL WIN OREGON. You want to inconsistently take it for granted that Goode won't win Oregon; but not take it for granted that Romney won't win Oregon.
Because if things take a turn for the worse in Oregon and many voters decide they want to change course, who do you think those voters will vote for? Goode? Hoefling?
You look with your eyes wide open @ Virgil Goode's chances in Oregon; but when it comes to analyzing Mitt Romney's chances in Oregon, you close them & conclude, "Nope. Not taking the obvious for granted."
Goode doesn't have a chance, Romney does.
That is called exercising a selective fantasy. (You are simply inconsistent)
Romney has a chance of winning the election. The only other candidate that can be said of is Obama. Demonstrate to me that a Conservative alternative can win, and I'm in. Otherwise, your choices are Romney and Obama, so choose your poison.
The GOP-E and their supporters are using Romney to divide/discourage conservatives.
A divided conservative movement is a losing conservative movement.
For whatever reason, the GOP-E and their supports are actually working for an Obama victory.
It is the whole idea of the 5th column...the clandestine enemy within your own camp demoralizing your troops as part of the enemy effort to achieve victory.
They're certainly doing a bang-up job here on FreeRepublic. The more they insult and demean anyone who won't jump on the Romney bandwagon, the more they drive us away. I especially like the latest technique of insinuating that we're all going to be staying home - as if there are only two people to vote for in November.
OK, only if you can demonstrate for me that Romney can win ANY of those 15 states I listed...
Because if things take a turn for the worse in Oregon and many voters decide they want to change course, who do you think those voters will vote for? Goode? Hoefling?
You don't know Oregon very well, do you?
It wouldn't be Romney...About 1 in 7 Oregon residents is either an atheist or agnostic.
Most would vote the Green Party or Libertarian Party (Gary Johnson) before ever thinking of Romney, Goode or some conservative...
Romney has a chance of winning the election
Again, allow me to give you a primer: THERE IS NO POPULAR-VOTE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE...
Instead, it's like 51 distinct mini-races...the 50 states (+ DC)
Romney has a chance of winning 35 of those mini-races...HE HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING THE REST!
My question to you: Were you a betting person -- and they told you: "I'll wager you $10,000 that Romney won't win EVEN ONE of those 15 states or D.C...All you have to do is have Romney win ONE of those states...and you win the bet." Would you do it?
Would your "turn for the worse" grand illusion be enough to wager $10,000?
“The GOP-E and their supporters are using Romney to divide/discourage conservatives.”
Actually Chaplain, I don’t think they are that insidious (that would be ascribing to them intelligence they don’t have). The GOP Establishment actually wants Romney elected because he is one of their own (not conservative except by lip service). They want to maintain “conservatives” in the GOP because we are the base that keeps the party winning elections. However, they never have shared our conservative values or intended to meet our wishes. They actually have nothing but contempt for those of us that have real moral concerns, etc. I think they really are an East Coast “Country Club” elite.
They, and their dog Romney, are to be devoutely opposed. Obama and Romney are both evil. Supporting Romney just ensures the GOPe will continue to “rule” the GOP and real conservatives will NOT have any say or voice.
I really believe that a strong Senate and House with a majority of real conservatives can not only negate Obama....they may well impeach and successfully convict him for crimes against the constitution. That would be a much more fitting end to the Obama administration than replacing him with a GOPe liberal like Romney.
Actually, mitt’s candidacy is helping obama.
Romney is the soft non threatening moderate who won’t do anything to spook the progressive/globalist herd on either side of the aisle.
You are absolutely correct and, in retrospect, the greatest mistake conservatives made was going along with GWB and pretending he was a conservative.
“First, there is a lesser of two evils here. Either Romney will win, or Obama will. Choose your poison.”
By your own writing you recognize that both are “poison.”
IF Romney gets elected his leftest tendencies WILL run rampant and the GOP members of congress WILL NOT stop him...because of “party loyalty.” Even the really conservative ones will be leaned on to back the fool. Better to have a “clear” enemy that WILL unite the conservative members of Congress against him.
No...there is no lesser of two evils. You cannot fight evil (Obama) with evil (Romney). You just perpetuate evil by doing so.
“Obama and Romney are both evil.”
That is the only way in your mind that justifies voting for Goode. So to teach the GOPe a lesson you are going to vote for Goode. Another 4 years of Obama is the same as 4 years of Romney because they are both evil. Never mind the people who are suffering across the nation because of Obama’s policies. Never mind the people who are losing there homes and life’s saving because of Obama’s polices. Never mind the impact Obama is having on the business’s, energy and defence.
IMHO Romney will address those issues and correct them. He will start by approving the Keystone pipeline and other energy supplies. He will stop Obama’s destruction of this country.
Tell what voting for Goode is going to do for our country in the next 4 years? How many states is he running in?
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.