Posted on 02/09/2020 3:32:31 AM PST by Kaslin
We’ve known about Romney for quite a while now - he just solidified it and will be a pariah to our Party from now on.
We had McRomneyBush Republicanism from January 20, 1989 to January 20, 2017. We were told, ordered and guilted into voting for these self-serving, greedy, lying, fake conservatives, America hating sellouts ( many of FR still drink this bland hypocritical kool-aid of nothing and demand our votes for this riff-raff) NO MORE! If the GOP thinks this fake conservativism is going to fly again they are in for a stunning surprise. Either the GOP changes or there is a reckoning coming in 2024 that will heal or kill the GOP. If you think McRomney/Bush are vital for the GOP you are as big a part of the problem as they are in the GOP.
Even today, if a Romney/Bush/Kasich were to run as the chosen "R", some would have no problem voting that way. They're hopeless and a large part of why we're in deep trouble.
Democrats on Purity = Oil and Water
I don’t think Rand Paul would vote against him to hurt him when the chips are down. That is Romney’s m.o.
Thanks for posting Kaslin. But you always post without comment and we would not mind hearing from you yourself. I suppose it is not necessary if you think the post speaks for itself.
I find myself speaking on the forum in defense of neverRinos although I have no right to be the self appointed spokesman for anybody. But I appreciate anyone’s kind attention and welcome correction and disputation.
The word “purity” fails if it is designed to be persuasive. The idea is this author understands why we are doing what we do and merely needs to represent it as foolish or unwise. So you see as the thread develops that they simply reject the false characterization of their motives. “It is not about purity...” they say.
There is a point made that “Romney votes with the president 80% of the time.” It is still not clear to me if this is persuasive or not. Surely this is just another way of stating the “lesser of two evils” argument. I have been saying here that the argument is unpersuasive in all its forms. This is not helpful for me to say as obviously the ones who continue to espouse this position most certainly do consider themselves fully persuaded by it. I am correct however that there are a host of conservatives who have finally and absolutely rejected this argument and will not be persuaded by any restatement of it including this 80% idea about Romney.
Do I understand the motives of all these people? Well I have no right to say it...but yeah I do!
Why does the burden of proof fall on you? In most debate it is good strategy to shift the burden of proof to the other side. It is also weak and does not help if we are seeking the truth. The burden is on you to convince if your agenda needs me. I do not need you to agree with me at all. My agenda does not require me to influence your vote, it is the other way around.
BobL, one of the great ones here has been very clear about the judiciary and Trumps leadership and I confess myself almost convinced...maybe.
I meant that Rand Paul may differ with party line and Trump on matters of foreign policy or domestic spending. He is not a traitor. And he won’t buy into this impeachment farce! Of course not. He has respect for the office of the presidency even if a Dem were holding it.
Romney is driven by greed, ego, envy, and corruption.
Idiot republicans thirsting for vengeance will only keep the story alive and the media will feast on it make no mistake.
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.