Skip to comments.Veterans Give Romney Big Lead Over Obama (58% to 34%)
Posted on 05/28/2012 6:57:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
“I’m disappointed that its not 85% for Romney and less than 15% for the Poser. Are 34% of the veterans not informed or and happy with what is in store for them on the horizon with the health care the veterans will be getting under Obamacare?”
Take a look at the percentages for FEMALE veterans. 47% for Obama, 42% for Romney.
What’s going on with them?
"The sky is falling!" ABOers will shriek that Obama the Omnipotent won't be touched or affected by the fact that (ideally) 66% of Americans voted against him but he won on a plurality, but again ... it would be solely a kneejerk emotional reaction. In reality, Obama WOULD be made weak, his enemies in his own party would become that much more powerful, and Republican in Congress will know they'd better fight for limited government because "moderate" and "statist" lost in BOTH PARTIES.
Romney is a ruthless control freak -- look at his record and look at his MO. He's not going to roll over to conservatives if he gets in the White House, but "conservatives" already elected will roll over for him because he plays political hardball. It would be stupid to elect him.
If you vote for Romey OR if you vote for Obama, you will be voting FOR more and bigger government. PERIOD. In the presidential race, if it's O v R, there is only one way you can effectively vote against more and bigger government: vote third party and leave it to the wind which one wins, as your vote will have zero affect on that outcome, but your vote WILL have the effect of weakening the statist winner and empowering his opposition, which would be a GOOD thing whether it was Obama or Romney.
I have respect, compassion, and empathy for them. Warning them, reasoning with the facts and estimated risks, even telling them that their approach is stupid, and urging them to look again, think again, consider the multiple angles and consequences, is very, very far from not respecting them.
How about YOU have enough respect for MY point of view that you don't automatically consider thinking your choice is a badly thought one "disrespectful"? You can call my take on OvR stupid if you want, and I understand that there is no disrepect intended. Why don't you do the same? GET IT?
Maybe they are not really veterans at all.
In Texas Vietnam Veterans News, Volume 22, Issue I, Winter 2010. Portions of which got in my craw. Something fierce.
And it has to do with the ubersoldiers. Something I just made up for the fakes that prance around and pretend they are vets and heroes. When theyre only mousy wannabe warriors without the consequence of ever serving in harms way.
In the Who Claim to Have Been There department, its written in the issue:
1,713,823 of those who served in Vietnam were still alive as of August, 1995 (census figures).
During that same Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in country was: 9,492,958. (Those who actually served in country amounted to 2.7 million)
As of the current Census taken during August, 2000, the surviving U.S. Vietnam Veteran population estimate is: 1,002,511. This is hard to believe, losing nearly 711,000 between 95 and 00. Thats 390 a day.
During this census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not.
Stats such as the above make the hairs on my neck rise up. In my mind the pulpy and tacky idjits who claimed to have served in country are no better than those who would steal butter from a man thats got hot pancakes coming.
But lets read on. Cause the Grim Reaper is closing in on the ones that did serve.
Of the 2,709,918 Americans who served in Vietnam; less that 850,000 are estimated to be alive today, with the youngest American Vietnam veterans age approximated to be 54 years old.
So if youre alive and reading this, how does it feel to be among the last one-third of all the U.S. Vets who served in Vietnam? Dont know about you, but kinda gives me the chills, considering this is the kind of information we are used to reading about WWII and Korean War vets.
So the last 14 years we are dying too fast, only a few will survive by 2015 if any.
If true, 39 VN vets die a day, on average. So in 2,190 days from today, youre lucky to be a Vietnam veteran alive in only 6 years.
In my book, by the numbers, those are sobering statistics. And I salute the ones that served.
However, through the years I have met a number of supposed GIs that hid in imaginary root cellars, worked the bolt on M-16s, popped rounds as a door gunner, and rescued comrades in arms, yet stateside became legends in minds befogged by grass and other opiates and alcohol. Of those that boast with questioned-credibility, I only say, Show me your DD-214.
For those of us that can display a DD-214, at the oddest of times, well recall the camaraderie of card playin, horseplay, R&Rs, sights and smells of a strange little country along with the horror of war down the road.
If you have watched him over the years and how he plays politics, how his supporters behave, their lack of ethics as amply and consistently demonstrated over the years on FR, you're dreaming if you think a guy like Romney would roll over to limited government conservatives once he got the White House. No, this is what would happen: he'd use the same hardball ruthless tactics to suppress and hurt limited government Republicans in Congress. It's what Romney IS. It is what you'd be voting FOR as the price for voting "against" Obama, whom you grant about 10,000 times more Godlike powers and sources of support than he actually possesses.
You think you are voting "against" Obama, but the reality is that YOU ARE VOTING FOR MORE AND BIGGER GOVERNMENT.
That gift was squandered when we ignored their warnings and instituted Universal Suffrage via Constitutional amendment.
DC will never fix the problem, DC IS the problem.
The sooner the collapse happens, (that would be when the SS and disability stop coming)the better.
Then it will be possible to start from scratch, first order of business moving the Capital out of DC and rotating it amongst the states.
Personal observation of the political leanings of some draftees I know from the Vietnam Era. The 34% favoring Obama came from somewhere.Do you feel volunteers make up the bulk of this 34%?
It’s not enough to be against everything. You have to be for something. Right now we have 2 electable candidates. Refusing to choose a candidate and sitting out this election out means you stand for nothing.
Romney has an 87% approval rating among GOP voters. The ABO train has left the station.
Don't put words in my mouth. I "lectured" you specifically for saying that "All you ABO people"..."are only looking at Obama".
As I said, your generalization is poor. I give far more credit to ABO people or at least some of them. Many are very familiar with the flipping liar's record.
How about YOU have enough respect for MY point of view that you don't automatically consider thinking your choice is a badly thought one "disrespectful"?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
A 3rd-party vote is a valid political expression, without question...the Mittens Derangement Syndrome, not so much...
We really need to get rid of the "Daddy's little girl" mentality as it raises women to feel they need to be taken care of, thus they often look to the government for support and as a result, they vote predominantly liberal.
Women need not serve combat roles but there is plenty of room for them in the military to perform other roles.
As an individual that volunteered to serve in Vietnam and as a combat veteran, I've never had much respect for those males that didn't serve their country in some manner.
Deeply flawed perception, there. I'm not against "everything." I'm against voting FOR more and bigger government.
Refusing to choose a candidate and sitting out this election out means you stand for nothing.
Wrong perception again: I'm choosing a candidate -- I will vote for a legit on-the-ballot third-party candidate, and I am doing it most certainly to stand and vote against bigger government. I'll be doing it expressly to use my vote to help in the making of as weak a plurality as possible for whichever BAD candidate, and they are both BAD FOR AMERICA, wins. If Romney has 87% approval among GOP voters, then the GOP has left me and is not my party in any case. However, the reality is that Romney's "approval" is probably nil -- his only attraction is that he's not Obama.
Voting FOR Romney means you stand for making the Republican party the party of Big Government Statism. You can rationalize it all you want, but bottom line, that will mean that that's what you stand FOR.
They need to look more at Romney's record, or more important, THINK about the consequences of voting FOR all what is bad and wrong because they are too afraid to stand and fight what is also bad and wrong, and too scared to see that there is a way to make Obama weak and vulnerable so that he would be easier to fight, and it is a BETTER strategy than avoiding a confrontation with Obama by voting FOR somebody whose RECORD shows that he is just as dedicated to big government liberalism.
I expect you figure that my thinking this way is "disrespectful" of good conservatives who are falling for the ABO strategy. But then, you'll probably once again have no idea what I'm trying to say. *sigh*
You may very well be suffering from Mitt Denial Syndrome. If Hillary Clinton switched parties and I refused to vote for her, you'd be on pretty much the same solid ground accusing me of having Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
Look at Romney's record. He has ADVANCED the FIVE major issues that I and millions of Americans have been voting Republican for decades to oppose. There's nothing deranged about seeing that reality. The derangement is in indulging the desperate hope and illusion that drinking salt water while stranded at sea will do anything but kill you. Thinking Romney will "save" America is like thinking salt water will quench your thirst: delirious delusion.
Remember: What you tell a pollster on the phone, (a complete stranger whos attitude about “Dear Leader, our first black president” you don’t know), and what you do in the privacy of the voting booth with a secret ballot can be two ENTIRELY different things!
Yup...tears on command.
No, veterans are NOT Stupid.
Many of them are so old now, in their 80s, they’re becoming Senile and Scared. They were never stupid!!
Unfortunately, we are only going to have two real choices in Nov.
It’s sort of a choice between communism today and communism next year.
I’ll have to go with the longest period left to fight it.
Once again, you put words in my mouth. Don't do that. You're not smart enough. What I have done is called you out on your hyperbole as you mischaracterize some good conservatives. Does that irritate you?
But ABO folks who know Romney is a flipping liar are so scared of Obama that they'll give their precious vote TO a flipping liar (but hey, he's the GOP's flipping liar!) and tell themselves that he'll come around afterward.
You should find an ABO poster who claims to know that Mitt "will" come around and address your remark to them.
As I was saying, Romney is a liar, with a liberal record.
Obama is an outright tyrant who "will" never come around.
There are ABO folks who think there is a small chance that they will get what they want if Mitt is elected while they know that there is Zero chance that they will get what they want if Obama is elected.
As I said earlier, come election day I will consider that argument when it comes time to decide how I will vote.
Plain and simple for you.
I doubt it.
The thing that surprises me is that 34% support obama. With
the way he’s treated them, it should be in the negatives!
And don’t get me started on why women like him. He totally
creeps me out!
No, there will be only two real outcomes: Obama or Romney, unless a really exciting and uniting third party person runs and wins on a plurality, a possiblity since both Romney and Obama are loathed by so many in their own parties.
But barring that, you're right in that there are only two outcomes, Obama or Romney. But you're wrong that we have only two choices. WE HAVE A THIRD CHOICE and it is one of strategy.
In 1992, 57% of American voters voted AGAINST Bill Clinton; he won on a 43% plurality, which made him weak and vulnerable and so encouraged limited government conservatives that Clinton got creamed in the mid-terms and the Republican Revolution did HUGE GOOD for America. Clinton was REJECTED by the majority of voters both times he ran, though most people have forgotten that because the MSM has so many people believing its pro-Clinton spin. But Clinton was rejected by the majority BOTH TIMES. Had Perot voters stayed home and made it so Clinton won with a majority, the Republican Revolution would probably never have happened.
Our THIRD choice in November is to vote official on-the-ballot third party (a write-in may well invalidate your entire ballot). Such a vote will be entirely neutral with regard to whether Obama or Romney wins, but it will effectively weaken the winner by making him enter office with, hopefully, a plurality in the 34-40% range, meaning that it is clear to all involved that his support is very weak and that he is politically vulnerable. Our THIRD choice is to vote so that whichever bad-for-America statist wins, has the deck stacked against him on all sides because the majority voted against him.
Well.. Im a Navy Vet and I wont be voting for either of these socialists...
With all due respect, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with the 34 percent who FAVOR Obama?
With all due respect, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with the 34 percent who FAVOR Obama? .................................................. The military is not 100% for any party. Look at the the former presidents of our time, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and those who wanted to be like McGovern, and even some former Navy Lt who served in Vietnam along with a pencil pusher who went on an ambush patrol. I have 2 friends who were in the USAF and they are DU types, so 34% doesn’t surprise me.
What a perfect analogy. PERFECT!!!
I might suggest that there is a higher homo percentage in the female vet catagory. Being Homo trumps everything, and perhaps it is the primary reason for their joining, and therefore they vote for Obama.
You mean like the Rasmussen surveys, which have shown Obama at or above 49% approval for more than a week?
As a voting block, how is the Veteran turn-out? I would think that Vets Vote!!! I’m a vet and I vote every election.
Enjoy your 3rd Party!
Enjoy finding out that Romney has zero intention of rolling over to conservatives once he gets in the White House and plays political hardball to keep conservative Republicans "in their place," and enjoy discovering that by letting fear bully you into voting for a statist Republican, YOU contributed to delivering a total progressive statist stronghold on BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL AISLE.
I don't think you sound deranged, actually. I think you sound desperate, like someone who hasn't really thought things out very far.
Truly, are you aware of the things Romney has actually done while in office? Or do you think I'm just making them up?
Are you okay with Republicans pushing state-run health care? YES OR NO???
Are you okay with Republicans pushing the full embrace of the global warming environmentalist tyranny? YES OR NO?
Are you okay with Republicans pushing taxpayer-funded on-demand abortion? YES OR NO?
Are you okay with Republicans pushing the legitimacy of appointing activist liberal judges? YES OR NO?
Are you okay with Republicans pushing legislation that will force people to accept, and punish them if they peacefully reject, open homosexuality in their society, from their kids' schools and Scouting groups all the way up to the U.S. military? YES OR NO?
Seriously, you owe it to your country and to yourself to truly ponder those questions rather than knee-jerking "ABO!" in answer. I assume your answer is "No!" to all five of them.
If so, you must next ask yourself: Why are you willing to vote for Romney if you're against all five of those things?
And you need to really, carefully examine and analyze that answer.
The "derangement" spin you like to put on my take is a self-defense mechanism to justify your doing something you know goes against all common sense: voting FOR arsenic because you want so desperately to get rid of cynanide. And I'm telling you don't vote for either one, vote so that whichever one wins is as diluted and weak as possible. Forcing a plurality win, the lower the the percentage the better, is THE ONLY WAY to weaken either poisonous victor.
If you think my thinking thus is "void of content," you are desperately lying to yourself, and again, need to ask yourself WHY.
With all due respect, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with the 34 percent who FAVOR Obama?
And the 1% who vote 3rd Party and the 1% who refuse to vote because their candidate did not get the nomination.
In years past, 3rd Party was, I think, truly for the "purists" who couldn't tolerate deviation from one or two issues. This time around, however, the Republican candidate deviates -- and has an established record to demonstrate it -- to the far left on FIVE MAJOR ISSUES (state-run health care, environmentalist ecotyranny, tax-funded abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda, and activist liberal judges) against which Republicans traditionally have presented the only opposition. Romney would neutralize that crucial opposition and his "win" would very likely be a death blow to conservatism.
Turn a blind eye to that if you want, but understand that the risk is HUGE when you turn such a blind eye.
In this election, you can vote for cyanide (Obama) or arsenic (Romney) or you can vote 3rd party for the express purpose of diluting whichever poison wins. Remember Clinton's 43% plurality win in '92 and how his watered-down "victory" made him so vulnerable and made conservatives so strong that the Republican Revolution followed two years later.
This is a situation where voting 3rd party is the smartest way to vote -- it's neutral as to influencing whether Obama or Romney wins, but has the power to make that win so watered down and diluted -- a 34% plurality win would be nice, where 66% voted against him -- that the victor enters office as a weakened pariah, and that would be a good thing whether it was Obama or Romney.
You and I have been around here long enough to predict with 99.99% certainty that if Romney wins and conservatives in Congress and out here in America attempted to "hold his feet to the fire," they'd discover pretty quickly that the response in Romney's well-organized power elite would be: "Look, the only reason Republicans even have the White House is because we moderates won, so sit down and shut up, conservatives."
And as Romney plays underhanded political hardball, many elected conservatives would be mysteriously silent, and as they saw the true ruthless authoritarian Romney reveal himself as iron-willed "progressive," all the ABO Chicken Littles who voted for him would be wailing, "But we had no choice!"
And it would be a lie: they DID and DO have a choice, and that is to vote so that whichever guys wins has as weak and tepid a victory as possible and goes into office vulnerable, defensive, and easier to dominate.
Do you believe Gallup ?
At some point, I'm going to be very comfortable with the idea of stripping these useless s.o.b.'s of their citizenship and requiring them to "get on the bus" to Europe or some other socialist realm of their choice.
It's time we split the sheets, before they become a majority. We have the veterans, we have the firearms, and it's time we got firm with these people. It's time we affirmed as a society, that military service, honest work, and patriotism are greater, more important values than being able to get good bagels at 2 a.m. and writing whiny letters to the editor of The New York Times.
Page jerks around so much when they're (slowly) posting up, I can't even read posts -- and it goes on for quite a while.
joe, I don't know why you posted yours twice, or how the exuberant imagery of Manchild supports what you posted -- and 4liberty, I can't even guess what yours was! Not even after checking the image file's properties.
So give us a break, guys.
You 'n me both, Brother FReeper. At the time, I was still on the GOP plantation and voted Republican anyway -- indeed, for the past nearly 40 years I"ve been voting, I have NEVER once voted for a Democrat and ONLY for a handful of libertarians ONLY in very local elections; I have voted straight party ticket faithfully and doggedly. I'm finally accepting the truth that that approach for the past 10 years has been fulfilling Einstein's definition of insanity. If I want to see change, I have to change how I vote.
Frankly, I THANK YOU for being fed up enough, and to have had the courage, to vote for Perot back then, though back then I would have angrily berated you. Your vote and the votes of patriots like you are THE ONLY THINGS that created the important plurality that helped enable the Republican Revolution, which helped America. FRiend, that Republican Revolution wouldn't have happened if HW had been re-elected, nor would it have happened if Clinton had won on a majority.
If HW had won, count on it: the Democrat to have followed him would have been as bad if not worse than Clinton, and Congress would have remained firmly left-bound.