Search found 3 matches

Return to “His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney”

by lbuehler325
Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:57 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
Replies: 467
Views: 88413

Re: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

Jaguar wrote:
Heartland Patriot wrote:
recaffeination wrote:
Dave2 wrote: This was not about whether or not Romney was the best candidate... My dead dog should've been able to beat Obama in the general election
I think the GOP cold have won with a better candidate. Now and in 2008.
And let us guess the name of that "better candidate"...at this point, I'm no longer downing your guy, who knows exactly what would have happened if he had gotten the nomination...but I just don't think anyone who wasn't willing to promise "free stuff" to those who won't work to get it could have won that election. Your guy wouldn't have promised "free stuff".

BHO promised "free stuff", he won.
Santa Claus is a tough opponent. :roll:
I'll say it again. Romney was doomed as a candidate. How exactly was he going to make his case for a bold change in direction? Let's review some notes. Despite all of his conservative rhetoric, his record was clear... and the record shows he's not significantly different than the President.
Let's see. Wanted to repeal ObamaCare, and replace it w/ something like RomneyCare, which was the government mandate model for ObamaCare. He would have kept "abortion safe and legal". He "absolutely" would have signed the NDAA which allows indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial (in direct violation of the 6th Amendment). He supported Tarp, the bank bailouts, and the debt ceiling increases. His fiscal plan would not balance the budget, much less reduce our national debt. And my personal favorite; when the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" was expiring, he advocated, lobbied for, and signed a more restrictive ban to replace it in MA.

Ultimately, 99% percent of voters voted for a Socialist candidate. The slight majority just happened to select the one who will admit those are his positions. Without a substantively different candidate, the Republican Party never had a chance.
by lbuehler325
Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:36 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
Replies: 467
Views: 88413

Re: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

canvasbck wrote:I find all this talk about how your vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama to be hillarious. Texas will be a red state.........period. Your vote for POTUS is completely useless in the state of Texas. The only individual vote that matters are the votes cast in battleground states thanks to our electoral process. The only impact that you, as a Texan, can have on the election at a federal level is through campaign contributions. The $$$ that you give to a campaign can be used to sway votes in those battlegound states.
quite
The idea that casting a vote for a non-viable candidate is a circular arguement because if people would vote for him, then he would be viable is equally absurd. The candidate (Gary Johnson) is non-viable because he is seriously under funded. He's not going to get votes because 80% of voters couldn't pick him out of a lineup if he was the only caucasion in the lineup. Why does the general public not know who he is???? Because he doesn't have the funds to get his name out there!!!!!! If you yearn for a "defender of the constitution" to be a viable candidate then send money to the party that you think represents you, or volunteer to help with the campaign and recruit others to do the same.

At this point I don't know who I'm casting a vote for POTUS in November, other than the fact that I know it won't be BHO. The fact is IT DOESN'T MATTER! The down ticket races are a different issue, I will vote for viable candidates that closely match my views. (Or at least don't oppose most of my desires). I have sent a modest donation to the Romney campaign to do what I can to evict the current occupier. Some day, maybe the Libertarian party will adopt a reasonable foriegn policy and they too will get some of my hard earned scratch.
I have to agree with canvasbck's explination about $$ and time being the most valuable things we can contribute. I would also add advocacy. That said, Obama is evil (in terms of my world view). Romney is slightly less evil. Johnson is not terribly evil, but doesn't quite get the whole liberty thing (in my opinion). I will vote, but Romney will carry TX with or without my vote. But I will protest my Party by withholding a vote from their colossally flawed nominee. I will not campaign for Romney, I will not donate money to his campaign, and I will take every opportunity to tell others about his flip flopping views, and his anti-liberty record. I'll do this not to reelect Obama, but rather educate others in the hopes of our party embracing liberty and the Constitution at some point (hopefully sooner than later).
by lbuehler325
Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:17 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
Replies: 467
Views: 88413

Re: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

clarionite wrote:
smoothoperator wrote:Thank you for demonstrating my point. :lol:
What point? You didn't make one.

Do you care to explain how voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney for this election will cause someone other than Obama or Romney to win?

If someone supported Obama, they'd vote for him. A vote for anyone else (who if you're honest with yourself, you know won't win) is nothing but a vote being taken from the Romney bucket.

I support your right to do so, I'm just not naive enough to think it accomplishes anything.
A vote for a candidate other than Obama or Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a vote for Obama. There will be a Communist candidate on many state ballots. A vote for that schmuck is certainly not a vote for Obama... and guess what? It is neither a vote for Romney. It is simply a vote for that marginal tier candidate.

But, think about it this way. As a Constitution loving, oath swearing defender of liberty, why would I vote for a candidate if I truly believed he/she does not stand for the principles of liberty, freedom, and individual rights? Because they are the lesser of two evil choices? Wouldn't that be an endorsement of evil? I am a Republican, and have voted Republican consistently since my 18th birthday, but I will now only vote for candidates who represent what I support. If I vote for Romney (a guy whom I do not believe understands or respects these principles), aren't I just saying that I endorse his philosophy for my party? Thanks, but no thanks. The lessor of two evils is still evil.

Look, I am not certain who I'll vote for in the general election. TX does not recognize write-ins, so my first choice isn't an option. While, I agree with Gary Johnson (L/R) on many things, there are some major sticking points (particularly how he supports foreign aid and intervention in some instances and not others, as well as his views on the right to life for all humans makes me think he doesn't fully embrace liberty).

The theory I will subscribe to is I will ultimately vote for a candidate who will expand my liberty, as the guy who'll erode it away slowly will still erode it away.

Return to “His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney”