That's SECOND black president, bub!
Posted on 04/26/2012 9:18:03 AM PDT by Student0165
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.
Well said.
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.
Politics is all about power. You will *always* have very powerful opposition that requires skill and unity to defeat.
As you imply, the problem this time was the field of nonRomneys and/or the failure to unite behind one of them. Romney, and whatever elites support him, could have been beat had this not been the case.
>Perhaps, one day, we will learn the true reasons she didn’t run...so far.
Not a chance of winning. I had hopes for her. Just like I later had hopes for Perry, Cain, Gingrich...none of them worth a damn. We’d have been better off to settle on less than perfect but still electable and now we’re left with “I hope I’m wrong about him”.
Well stated... from another “Hound”.
I meant that one day she may tell us the true reasons so that we don’t have to settle for “to be with my family.” Lots of suppositions floating around out there.
No, by whomever you are postulating for the same position in your third party. If you don't have such a person, or the person is not a good one, or you cannot organize for, nominate and elect such a person...
Then you just can't do politics on that scale. You can't do it on a large scale in your third party either. IF you can, you can do it in the GOP, easier.
I agree it would be much easier to have a house party and all agree on each other for the key positions. But then what?
I have to confess, I used to be vehemently opposed to third partyism and advocated for "reforming" the GOP from within. I used to make all the same stupid little unthinking arguments for "choosing the lesser of two evils" that we see people on this thread making. I woke up - they haven't.
My advice would be to just dismiss the "lesser of two evils" people and forge ahead without them. Likely, they'd just be dead weight in any serious movement to advance conservatism anywise. Keep building from the ground up, seeking to replace the GOP and it's establishment. When that happens, people like these on here will rally around once the GOP is visibly sliding, because following, rather than leading, is what these people do.
If you say so. Still, for next time, that’s not a straw man argument.
“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. “
So, Americans are as you imagine them, not as the votes reveal them to be? That is, Romney won the nomination because the votes were falsified? Or that Republican voters didn’t understand that voting for Romney gave them Romney?
And more Obama will be better? A real proven Marxist is better than whatever Romney seems to be today?
There’s some real confusing here.
There is a chance --and I have no idea what percent chance-- that a Republican controlled House and Senate would generate less liberal bilge from Milt 'I wanna be admired' Rominy. We know damned certain no such thing will come from Barry the bastard commie as a lame duck tyrant.
You need to do something that you are apparently unwilling to do, you need to realize that voting against allowing the little bastard commie to remain in power with his criminal enterprise is not an endorsement of Milt Rominy or his past record.
Keep building from the ground up
That's what has to be done in either case. After all, that's how the GOP began.
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.