Skip to comments.Voting for Romney? Where is your line in the sand? (Vanity)
Posted on 04/26/2012 9:18:03 AM PDT by Student0165
I want to ask those who consider themselves conservatives, and are going to vote for Romney because he happens to have an (R) instead of a (D) behind his name on the ballot sheet, where do you draw your personal line in the sand and say "No more"? For stupid people reading this (liberals and DHS type workers), I don't mean violence - I mean not voting for "the lesser of two evils".
Straw man argument.
DUers jerk off to these kinds of threads.
Terrorists crouch on carpets praising Allah for your success at dividing Republicans.
How soon before I see the Drudge headline that the once-great conservative website Free Republic is now flat-out PRO-OBAMA?
Shame on you.
Because the only consistant trait she has displayed is to know where her bread is buttered.
Thanks for your reply: At this point, to be a true conservative.
Was there anyone in the primary that met your standard?
DA-Da-Da, America-America...flags waving, crowds cheering...or....
Indeed (and thank you!). Also, I haven't seen voters as generally unenthusiastic, and even downright angry, as they are since 1992.
It seems as though you let your slip show on another thread...”Let the kenyan keep it another 4 years.”
And you serve what purpose? (I mean besides pretending to be a “student”.) Let me guess...Third Party?
Won’t work this time. Obama and his march to Marxism is over. And there’s nothing you can do about it.
Naive, at best.
April 22, 2012
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. The Republican Party establishment has withstood the tea-party revolution.
The tricorne-hat wearing, Gadsden-flag waving insurgents were nowhere near the Republican National Committees annual meeting of state chairman, which wrapped up at a posh resort here Saturday afternoon.
Many Republicans here said that tea-party activists now understand that things will run more smoothly if those with experience are in charge rather than those who put a premium on ideology over process.
It seems as though you let your slip show on another thread...Let the kenyan keep it another 4 years.
All I did was ask a question. It is so telling to see the fear and hatred come out of the Romneybots. Interesting.
I find your post doubly-ironic, considering your tagline.
BTW: Everything you talk about doing to create this third party could be done within the GOP easier and quicker.
If you can’t exercise the same skills and success within the party, I don’t believe you can do it outside. It’s been done before, it can be done again.
The problem this primary was a weak field and disunity - no organizing behind a single candidate opposed to Romney.
No, you have misapplied the term “straw man argument”. Does not fit in response to my personal statement, which is provable. Nothing about my statement was a construction to be demolished.
“...if the only way to get rid of Obama is to cast a vote for Romney then thats what Ill have to do (even it if means walking outside and throwing up afterwards).”
I’ve already scheduled an appointment with my doctor to have my tongue stitched back together after I pull the lever for RINO-Romney.
Whatever it takes to be get the zer0 out!
You mean the guy who was polling 40+% consistently throughout June of 1992? The guy who only lost because he more or less self-destructed like a crazy man?
Not actually a very good example to make your case. A non-crazy conservative could mount a winning campaign.
Like it or not, politics is a numbers game, and the majority of the electorate is not conservative.
Sure they are - they just need to be made to understand this fact.
Harsh judgment. Oh well, that is the presstitutes’ line they’ve spread about her. For those willing to dig into the subject, it is possible to discover what you wrote is not quite the truth.
How do you NOT know this?
———In four years we will have other candidates———
The rest of the lesson is very plainly visible here on Free Republic. There is no such thing as a “Conservative”. There is an extremely wide variation of views with specifics among individuals quite variable. There was no consensus enabling one candidate to be thrust the forefront. It seemed that what was good didn’t matter. It was that which caused one to be against that prevailed.The result was smaller coalitions of those who could accept that which others, other conservatives disdained.
Then there is poor ol’ pissant. He got so riled and vociferous, he got zotted.
My solution is a CONSERVATIVE SECONDARY. A method must be developed to weigh and measure qualifications, develop consensus, and result in one or at most two conservative candidates in the Republican Primary.
We do not need a third party. We need a strong Conservative Coalition residing under the Republican tent. It might be a Tea Party Coalition but with several competing Tea Parties it may never come to pass. Bravado and “By God I won’t ever vote RINO” must be softened by developing real strength in a coalition.
Until such a coalition is existing and functioning, the probability for prevailing at a national level is slim.
I think it should be Newt’s job and legacy to begin just such an effort
I'd love to see how the Founding Fathers would contend with today's massive and corrupt government beaurocracy and dumbed-down, left-leaning electorate.
Not naive. Those state chairman you blame, can be replaced. They very often are.
If you can’t organize and replace those positions in the GOP, you can’t do the same thing in a third party - it’s the same work and skills.
Further, if you have a third-party, you’ll have the identical task of filling those slots with those folks you want - and the same arguments and fights.
The only difference is you have a ton of extra work for a new party that you don’t have organizing and changing an existing party.
It's more than just running a non-crazy candidate. You have to have someone of real stature. The electorate needs to be very, very angry. There could be a Conservative party victory and permanent replacement of the Republican party but I think without these things it ain't gonna happen.
Skimmed through the first 100 posts, and as usual not one, not one confirmed policy change Mandate-Mitt in any post, not one.
Federal Bloc. dream candidate. Mandate-Mitt, the most unknown mandate dangerous Federal Takeover candidate ever. No wonder they want the Undocumented Coffee Server out.
Some of them would be posting or lurking on Free Republic trying to figure out what to do.
From Wiki: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Nobody here has argued that the GOP will automatically receive conservatives’ votes.
Nope. It's already been tried. It didn't work. Face it - as much as you want to believe otherwise, the GOP simply is not a place for conservatives anymore.
Once Palin decided not to run, I could have held my nose and voted for Gingrich.
Both of these have sizable and vocal opposition here. The problem is closer to home than blaming the party, IMHO.
Start a third party and I believe you will have the same problems, the same arguments, the same disunity. Until this is overcome, nothing really changes.
And I bet you donated a kidney to a homeless vet. What a load.
A) I spent two decades trying to fix the GOP. Like I told you, it’s a pipe dream. And with the impending nomination of Romney, the situation just got infinitely worse.
B) I’ve spent four years building a new party, and we’re doing just fine, with a minimum of “arguments and fights.” And we’re doing it on a completely principled basis.
Poll results 6 months before elections aren't particularly relevant.
I voted for Perot. It was a dumb mistake. Lesson learned.
I don’t vote for Socialists, whether Republican or Democrat.
Mitt 0bamney is therefore disqualified from the possibility of receiving my vote.
That was an utterly stupid and worthless reply. You made a claim that you cannot possibly know to be true and I called you on your b.s.
I watched it and worked in and for it when it did work during the Reagan years.
The party is not a separate monolithic entity - it is comprised of people. It's not exactly the same from one month to the next, one election to the next.
Politics is messy and a long hard continuous slog, from the bottom to the top. The work and results are the same within the GOP as they would be in a new party, except you'd have much greater obstacles to overcome in a new party.
“A non-crazy conservative...”
Leftists, Romneybots, and several recent posters on Free Republic would say that’s an oxymoron even if not talking about Ross Perot.
I have to agree with this. I know many Freepers are blaming the GOPe for giving us Romney, but my view is that we did not have a strong slate to begin with. I really wanted Palin to run and then went for Cain until it dawned on me that Newt was the smartest man on the stage. Now, I am going to do everything I can to keep the Kenyan from having a second term. NO ONE is more evil than him and his minions.
What we need to ask ourselves is why didn't a really STRONG conservative throw his/her hat in the ring? Didn't we have someone other than Palin?
Good grief, you *are* naive, aren't you?
Replaced by whom, another state chair whose jib is cut the exact same way. State party politics are almost always driven by personality more than ideology, except in very rare circumstances where a determined ideological minority raises enough of a ruckus that the rank and file wakes up for a moment and gets mad enough to turn out in force at county conventions.
Most of the time, however, when one state chair (or other top official) is replaced, it has to do with factional politics - one guy's circle of followers was able to finagle a way to get the other guy thrown out.
What line is it you speak of? I choose between the choices that have qualified to be on the ballot based on what is the best for America.That always means not voting democrat.
as long as America is still a free country, I will vote in every election. I will vote for Romney, since not voting is not an option for me. I won’t vote for a Marxist, and not voting is a vote for the Marxist.
One reason it would kill the Whig party for certain.
I’m not insinuating a third party like some harridans on this thread (who do not know me) are contending. I don’t believe a third party will work with our election system. I am, however, fed up with fear voting and I asked a simple question about where conservatives draw their voting line in the sand when it comes to the same old Dole/McCain/Romney - and even Bush candidates.
Thank you for your sane replies.
Enjoy the next 4 years of Obama then.Hope he doesn’t end your jobs in those 4 years.
A: So that we don't have two identically Socialist Parties in the U.S., the Red Socialists and the Blue Socialists, with no essential distinction.
I'll take the Real Socialist to maintain the distinction between Socialism and Non-Socialism forever. To eliminate the distinction is the greatest harm. I'd rather lose fighting for actual freedom than win my own prison cell.
I'm sure of it. :-)
Perhaps, one day, we will learn the true reasons she didn’t run...so far.
It is easy to state, as many here do, that Romney was wired for the nomination by the scoundrels of the GOP-elite.
It is much harder to identify the solid conservative candidate that we would all have rallied behind had not the GOP-e evildoers done their dirty.
Re Romney in 2016: Also, he has the money to run again, has made it clear there’s nothing he’d rather do for years on end than run for President, would surely get the GOP-e backing all over again.
My experience was different, it was successful. If you’re unsuccessful there are reasons for it.
If your third party grows to any size, say the size necessary to get on the ballot and run a credible national campaign, you will have fights and dissension and same problems you have with the GOP.
Because the only way not to is to not have very many people involved.
The politics of freedom are a messy affair.
You are a mewling little coward with a stream of Mitt running down your chin. It ain’t pretty little lady.
You "called me on my b.s." Sure. Is that what they're calling "spewing idiocy" these days?
You're right - I don't *know* that a third party would win under the circumstances I've described. True enough. I also don't *know* the outcome to a lot of other events which are still over seven months away. Nobody does. Ergo, you're question was a stupid irrelevancy serving as an inadequate substitute for actual thought, designed to justify your own personal lack of courage.
At least I provided a framework argument for why a third party *could* have a better-than-fair chance of winning it all. You didn't even attempt to provide reasons why it couldn't. Throwing your diaper at me doesn't count, btw.