Which is exactly why some of us fight so relentlessly for ONLY electing people of principle and why so many more fight so strongly to shut us up.
I respect your strong feelings on the issue, and your arrival date as a 98er but as I see it no one is trying to shut you up. They are trying to pound some sense into those unwilling to recognize their complicity in the virtual destruction of every principle upon which this nation was founded, and doing it in the name of principle.
Shooting yourself in the foot with the imminent destruction of the country at stake, should get you a long sentence in Leavenworth or a public flogging instead of a place on the pedestal of pride.
Your post seems to infer your version of principle is supposed to trump mine or the many others here who figure your version of such gave us the six years of Obama and another two coming.
Me thinks you protest a bit too much about being shut up when reality is that all of us better believe in the three founding documents of this country which enumerate your right to say what you want and accept the consequences.
As I see it, there are three possibilities that contributed to Mr Obama occupying the White House:
1. Outright voter fraud
2. The principled voter syndrome
3. An electorate made up of...
The answer may well be a combination of all three but I believe regardless of the answer, it will be difficult to contend that shooting oneself in the foot over contested “principle” is not one of them that got us where we are today.
This isn’t personal, and I’m guessing we both came here for many of the same reasons and stuck it out over many controversial years to arrive at 2014.
My state is now faced with what I believe to be the identical scenario faced by Republican’s and the so called principled voter in the presidential election of 2008 and 2012. The result could be not gaining control of the US Senate and therefor the ability to slow or contain the destructive policies of the democrat administration, and Harry Reid in particular.
It started with a five way primary where the two “principled” candidates lost, and continues in a four way general between one so called republican, two independents, one an outright leftist, and the other the principled republican, running as an independent, and the democrat. The race is tight as can be between the three primary candidates. If we choose poorly the dem or the leftist walk into the Senate and we are toast.
If that ends up the result, how can anyone come back and justify the “principled” vote? I would rather try to justify “I voted my conscience”, than call it principled.
That said I started working on Conscience and principle and immediately got bogged down so I’ll leave it at that.
Obviously you missed the hundreds of threads with the Freeper left all complaining about people voting for conservatives rather than liberal Republicans.
If your or anyone’s opinion is that Liberal Republicans are better than Liberal dems when their records are mirrors of each other, then yes, my principles are superior since Liberal Republicans are every bit the evil that liberal democrats are.
The founders did not set up a system to elect someone ‘no matter what’. They set up the system to elect principled (as in constitutional abiding) people to run the country/govern according to the constitution. Liberal Repubs do the polar opposite of that. If you disagree, so be it. Doesn’t change the reality or the truth.